267 réponses à ce sujet

[AlanC9]

But why complete those quests at all, then?

[In Exile]

I couldn't disagree more.

Except for one thing. What you describe, zipping fast-travel points just to complete quests, does sound really dull. But given that it's dull, why do it?

I almost never fast-travel in Inquisition.

Do you enjoy comutes? Because that's what travelling in games feels like to me - a pointless waste of time caused solely by the fact that the place where I am at and the place I need to go are far apart. The benefits to walking IRL - the feeling good from physical exercise - don't exist in game.

And the game areas are never visually interesting enough I find to make exploring worth it. It is super rare for a game to make me feel as if the place I am exploring is worth it for the visual alone. So far the only recent example that comes to mind is the Titan part of Descent.

[RoboticWater]

But why complete those quests at all, then?

For one, we do need to complete at least some fetch quests to meet Power requirements (certainly if we want to open up new locations to explore). But I think the point that prompted this argument is that the fetch quests are an unnecessary result of backwards design. The quests may feel like less of a chore (i.e. more well paced) if the scale of the zones was built to fit the content rather than the other way around. Level design is imperative to the pacing of any game whether its a linear shooter or a large RPG. Also, while I won't say that cutting down on fetch quests would definitely yield enough resources for significantly more meaningful content, I would take only a couple more decent quests and better pacing over simply more content any day.

 

I'm fairly sure that most players want to enjoy exploring these landscapes–they're beautiful and probably have some lore relevance–so it's annoying when BioWare can't provide enough compelling gameplay to allow players to do that. 

 

Do you enjoy comutes? Because that's what travelling in games feels like to me - a pointless waste of time caused solely by the fact that the place where I am at and the place I need to go are far apart. The benefits to walking IRL - the feeling good from physical exercise - don't exist in game.

And the game areas are never visually interesting enough I find to make exploring worth it. It is super rare for a game to make me feel as if the place I am exploring is worth it for the visual alone. So far the only recent example that comes to mind is the Titan part of Descent.

More importantly (at least for me) DA:I's gameplay was not consistently engaging in either the random encounters or the traversal mechanics. Dark Souls manages to be great fun despite being deliberately repetitive and having virtually no story content by investing development into combat depth and level design. Even Skyrim avoids much of the fetch quest hum-drum by inundating the player with fairly interesting diversions like shacks, forts, and decently sized dungeons.

[Linkenski]

I couldn't disagree more.

Except for one thing. What you describe, zipping fast-travel points just to complete quests, does sound really dull. But given that it's dull, why do it?

I almost never fast-travel in Inquisition.

Good for you. I hope you slept well through those 40 extra hours.

[straykat]

They have buttons we can press. But without some indication of what those buttons will make Shepard do, we can't really be said to be choosing anything.

 

I'm not talking within the cutscene itself... I'm talking in-between. Every one of them has an intermission moment. ME3 has the big cutscenes with the Geth or Tuchanka.. but you know what you're choosing more or less in the big moments with Legion and Mordin.

 

There's nothing like that in MGS. Or any Japanese games really. They love their auteurs.

 

Some scenes are poorer than others though. The entire intro to ME3 annoys me. Where you're walking with Anderson. It feels very passive. I would have preferred a longer prologue during a trial.. or just doing little things on Earth before it goes belly up.

 

But I'd prefer that for DAI too. And you seem to like that game.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Because walking between objectives is about as dull and takes longer.

Heading from objective to objective sounds like ticking boxes just to get them done rather than playing a character (or even a game).

Why am I heading for those objectives? The answer to that question makes my journey much more interesting.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Do you enjoy comutes? Because that's what travelling in games feels like to me - a pointless waste of time caused solely by the fact that the place where I am at and the place I need to go are far apart. The benefits to walking IRL - the feeling good from physical exercise - don't exist in game.

I enjoy the serenity of it all. I enjoy having the time to experience being my character.

I wanted DAO's deep roads to be longer, but have no extra content in them. I did the Ilos trench run on foot. I like walking places in games.

[Sylvius the Mad]

I'm not talking within the cutscene itself... I'm talking in-between. Every one of them has an intermission moment. ME3 has the big cutscenes with the Geth or Tuchanka.. but you know what you're choosing more or less in the big moments with Legion and Mordin.

There are a handful of big moments, but there are hundreds of little moments that are just missing.

I should get to make decisions for my character pretty much constantly throughout the game, not just at pre-written story branch points.

Some scenes are poorer than others though. The entire intro to ME3 annoys me. Where you're walking with Anderson. It feels very passive.

The whole game feels passive to me. Even in moments where I had direct control of Shepard, there was often nothing to do aside from follow instructions, not to mention the random little scenes that were forced upon me (like Shepard making any effort to save that kid on Earth).

I would have preferred a longer prologue during a trial.. or just doing little things on Earth before it goes belly up.

But I'd prefer that for DAI too. And you seem to like that game.

The pre-game background for the Herald is left almost completely unwritten, so we can headcanon it as we see fit.

That's something that has been sorely lacking from BioWare's post-KotOR games.

[straykat]

There are a handful of big moments, but there are hundreds of little moments that are just missing.

I should get to make decisions for my character pretty much constantly throughout the game, not just at pre-written story branch points.

 

You'd be better off writing your own stuff. Take out the middle man.

 

CRPGers are more akin to actors in a play. Not the playwright. Sometimes you have your lines and cues. Your real input is characterization and motivation. I can understand wanting some freedom (and ME can and should improve), but you seem like you'll never be happy except with your own stories. Or in a sandbox.

[Cyonan]

The pre-game background for the Herald is left almost completely unwritten, so we can headcanon it as we see fit.

That's something that has been sorely lacking from BioWare's post-KotOR games.

 

I would say that my elven mage inquisitor had about as much backstory as a DA:O character pre-written for her.

 

It just never actually came up that I was supposed to be the keeper's second in a Dalish tribe and despite that my elf apparently never knew much about the Dalish she lived among her entire life because Solas had to explain a bunch of it.

[RoboticWater]

Heading from objective to objective sounds like ticking boxes just to get them done rather than playing a character (or even a game).

Why am I heading for those objectives? The answer to that question makes my journey much more interesting.

Yes, but not interesting enough to outweigh the dullness of traveling. Besides, you've probably established why you're completing a specific quest objective prior to or upon receiving it. Unless you're constantly reexamining your motives every couple steps (a monotony unto itself), the trip is still going to be mainly just a mundane walk.
 

I enjoy the serenity of it all. I enjoy having the time to experience being my character.

I wanted DAO's deep roads to be longer, but have no extra content in them. I did the Ilos trench run on foot. I like walking places in games.

You can go on long boring walks whenever you want, so I don't see why quest design needs facilitate them.

[Sylvius the Mad]

You'd be better off writing your own stuff. Take out the middle man.

CRPGers are more akin to actors in a play. Not the playwright. Sometimes you have your lines and cues. Your real input is characterization and motivation. I can understand wanting some freedom (and ME can and should improve), but you seem like you'll never be happy except with your own stories. Or in a sandbox.

If you look back at the history of CRPGs, that has only been true recently, and not even in all recent CRPGs.

The 1980s were filled with CRPGs that gave you a ruleset and a setting and set you loose to do what you wanted. There was often a story in there somewhere, but you had to find it first.

CRPGs such as Questron or AutoDuel or Bard's Tale or Might & Magic or the first 3 Ultima games. And even games with obvious story paths (Ultima IV, V) or linear design (Wizardry, Dark Heart of Uukrul) didn't put words in your characters' mouths.

Ultima Underworld takes place in a single dungeon, with nowhere to go but deeper into it, but your character and motivations and objectives are entirely your own. It even had action combat, but the combat was mostly avoidable through diplomacy.

[Sylvius the Mad]

You can go on long boring walks whenever you want, so I don't see why quest design needs facilitate them.

The quest design doesn't, but the level design does.

[RoboticWater]

The quest design doesn't, but the level design does.

The two are intertwined.

[Sylvius the Mad]

I would say that my elven mage inquisitor had about as much backstory as a DA:O character pre-written for her.

Most of the DAO origins had more rigidly defined backstories. The casteless dwarf had lived her whole life in Dust Town, for example.

But in Inquisition, a human mage had been in a circle before the rebellion, yes, but for how long? He could have been a recently captured apostate for all the game tells us about his background.

It just never actually came up that I was supposed to be the keeper's second in a Dalish tribe and despite that my elf apparently never knew much about the Dalish she lived among her entire life because Solas had to explain a bunch of it.

If you didn't want Solas to explain it, why did you ask?

And here are some possible answers for you:

You thought Solas would enjoy telling the story.

You wanted to hear the stories as they were understood by a non-Dalish.

You wanted to see if Solas's fade-based perspective shed any light on some aspect of the stories.

There are all manner of possible reasons to ask someone about something, not just because you don't understand it. If that motivation is character-breaking, why assume it? The game never makes it clear why you were asking, so this problem you have is entirely your own invention.

[Sylvius the Mad]

The two are intertwined.

Only partly. The level design should not be limited by what the quests need of it. That just makes the level seem contrived and artificial. Game-y, if you will.

Just because you don't need to explore the farm outside the city is no reason for that farm not to be there. There should absolutely be places you don't need to visit, but they should still exist.

Similarly, places you do need to visit should exist and be visitable before you know you need to visit them. We should be able to encounter quest-related content out of order and out of context.

[RoboticWater]

Only partly. The level design should not be limited by what the quests need of it. That just makes the level seem contrived and artificial. Game-y, if you will.

Hence the word "design." The act of designing a level is the act of making it functional yet natural. This means that levels should be mechanically enjoyable to traverse while facilitating player-driven exploration. A game like Dark Souls achieves this perfectly by creating its world in tandem with its objectives.

 

Just because you don't need to explore the farm outside the city is no reason for that farm not to be there. There should absolutely be places you don't need to visit, but they should still exist.

Yes, but I shouldn't have to walk through that farm's massive back yard to get to every one of my objectives. If I did, it would behoove BioWare to make that back yard more interesting or cut down its size. The exploration remains, but it doesn't hinder my enjoyment of the game.
 

Similarly, places you do need to visit should exist and be visitable before you know you need to visit them. We should be able to encounter quest-related content out of order and out of context.

Sure, as long as it still tells a good story.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Yes, but I shouldn't have to walk through that farm's massive back yard to get to every one of my objectives. If I did, it would behoove BioWare to make that back yard more interesting or cut down its size. The exploration remains, but it doesn't hinder my enjoyment of the game.

You don't. Most of those objectives are optional. You don't have to look for evidence of Wardens or collect shards or solve dwarven riddles or plant bait for dragons.

Having too much content filling gaps in the world makes the world leas believable. I think DAI struck an excellent balance.

Sure, as long as it still tells a good story.

Not the point of a CRPG.

[vbibbi]

Not the point of a CRPG.

Maybe not in general, but that has been one of Bioware's selling points for years. It's disingenuous to claim that Bioware shouldn't try to include a "good story" with its CRPG elements.

 

I don't think the majority of people who buy Bioware games for the brand are saying "make your RPGs more like traditional RPGs and have less emphasis on characters and story."

[RoboticWater]

You don't. Most of those objectives are optional. You don't have to look for evidence of Wardens or collect shards or solve dwarven riddles or plant bait for dragons.

But what if my character wants to do those things? Being optional makes neither the tasks nor the trips any less mundane.
 

Having too much content filling gaps in the world makes the world leas believable. I think DAI struck an excellent balance.

Not if that content is seamlessly integrated. Stuff like shards stick out like a sore thumb, but if the content is built specifically for the area, I see no reason why it would detract from the verisimilitude.
 

Not the point of a CRPG.

Don't care.

[Cyonan]

Most of the DAO origins had more rigidly defined backstories. The casteless dwarf had lived her whole life in Dust Town, for example.

But in Inquisition, a human mage had been in a circle before the rebellion, yes, but for how long? He could have been a recently captured apostate for all the game tells us about his background.

 

It might just be the elven backgrounds, but my elf had been part of the Dalish tribe her whole life and been the Keeper's Second. That's not my doing headcanon for her backstory, that's what the game actually told me my backstory was.

 

My Human Warrior was admittedly a bit better, as he was a noble but very little was forced on me beyond that.

 

If you didn't want Solas to explain it, why did you ask?

And here are some possible answers for you:

You thought Solas would enjoy telling the story.

You wanted to hear the stories as they were understood by a non-Dalish.

You wanted to see if Solas's fade-based perspective shed any light on some aspect of the stories.

There are all manner of possible reasons to ask someone about something, not just because you don't understand it. If that motivation is character-breaking, why assume it? The game never makes it clear why you were asking, so this problem you have is entirely your own invention.

 

The problem is mostly that my elf actually acted like she didn't know any of that stuff and when it became relevant there was no dialogue option for it other than "Ask Solas to explain it".

 

Inquisition actually felt a lot like they designed the dialogue to fit the Human Inquisitor and didn't make enough changes to fit the other races. There is zero reason that a Keeper's Second should not have a passing knowledge of Dalish lore and be able to make comments about it when they come up.

 

Things felt much better overall on my second run through as a Human Warrior, but my understanding is that the Dwarves and Qunari players got even less than the Elves did.

[9TailsFox]

Do you enjoy comutes? Because that's what travelling in games feels like to me - a pointless waste of time caused solely by the fact that the place where I am at and the place I need to go are far apart. The benefits to walking IRL - the feeling good from physical exercise - don't exist in game.

And the game areas are never visually interesting enough I find to make exploring worth it. It is super rare for a game to make me feel as if the place I am exploring is worth it for the visual alone. So far the only recent example that comes to mind is the Titan part of Descent.

Thank you.

Spoiler

DA:I so big it take 100h to complete, so what if you waste time just walking for 80h. ME:A even bigger 200h and more walking driving(I hope at least in mako we can have party banter and companions don't go into horse ass). Why everyone praising you can complete 20h game in 100h like it's good think. Yes everyone hate DA2 but at least you don't waste so much time for running, yes I would like more than one dungeon. But why in DA:I have maps witch have no importance to main story witch is second most important think in Bioware games. Cut maps you don't use for main story and make more better side quests in maps you do.

[AlanC9]

But what if my character wants to do those things? Being optional makes neither the tasks nor the trips any less mundane.

So the problem comes in when the game makes your character want to do mundane things?

[Sylvius the Mad]

But what if my character wants to do those things? Being optional makes neither the tasks nor the trips any less mundane.

If your character wants to do them, then he's making that choice given the circumstances. Choosing that objective involves choosing the walk. If he wants to do the walk, then I want to experience him doing the walk.

Not if that content is seamlessly integrated. Stuff like shards stick out like a sore thumb, but if the content is built specifically for the area, I see no reason why it would detract from the verisimilitude.

Nature should have a certain amount of emptiness to it. If I'm walking over a snowy mountain in Skyrim, I'm not finding content every 10 steps.

If anything, I think the way to improve the levels in DAI would be to make harvestable resources less common and less evenly distributed, thus allowing exploration without repetitive interruptions.

[9TailsFox]

So the problem comes in when the game makes your character want to do mundane things?

You can't make main character king and then give him quests to solve peasants problems. Make main character peasant and you can give him quests to solve peasants problems.

 

It's like Darth Marr telling Inquisitor to go to Makeb. Why you ordering me?   My rank is same as you. Can some else from counsel go or Imperial Diplomatic Service it seems like job for someone like this. Fine I go to Makeb my research on immortality going nowhere so I can spend some time.