117 réponses à ce sujet

[KirkyX]

Side content is necessarily not story-driven, though. If it were, it wouldn't be side content.

I prefer RPG/simulators.

I feel like a lot of people define 'side-content' as 'content not necessary to the main plot'. So, for example, the companion quests in DA: I are 'side-content' - indeed, pretty much the only side-content in that game that I enjoy - even though they're entirely story-driven.

 

Most of BioWare's side -content has traditionally been story-driven to some extent, even if that story is as simple as Dagna wanting to go study the arcane in DA: O, necessitating that you go speak to the archmage. Inquisition, with its mountains of largely story-less side-activities, is the exception.

 

And, hey, if people are into that, good for them! It's just not something I enjoy, and represents my biggest problem with that game, and my greatest fear for ME: A.

[FKA_Servo]

I wouldn't blame achievements for that. I would blame Fear of Missing Out.

Like, sure, this character would never recruit Iron Bull, but what if he has great character writing? I'll never know if I don't recruit him.

 

In that case, I'd recruit him with a character who might be motivated to do so (or at least, isn't likely to be completely at odds with me) - maybe an easygoing, atheist Cadash rogue, as opposed to a devout, stuck up stickybeak Trevelyan circle mage. And hey, that's something to look forward to in my next game.

 

There's no reason for achievements to motivate behaviour. I've never understood the point.

I like how FO4 lets you disable the achievements. All games should allow that.

 

They do nevertheless. For many players, gamerscore is king. Granted, I'm not sure if those players are primarily RPG gamers or Bioware fans (I can't imagine why they would be, when there are plenty of silly platinum trophies to covet in Assassin's Creed or whatever), but I'm sure there's at least some overlap.

[Cyonan]

I'm a bit confused and annoyed by the hypocrisy. Not referring directly at OP.

 

I can't remember where I seen this, perhaps another, likely Tweeter thread. Andromeda devs "Aside from the missions on a planet. You might find nothing when exploring a planet's surface. But that doesn't mean it's nothing, just like planets in space now. Finding nothing is something, in exploration."

 

Fans "NO, not another Dragon Age Inquisition! Give us more, we want the whole area with missions! You failed us again Bioware."

 

No Man's Sky dev "You may find a lifeless planet. A planet that's just rocks and deserts. With no missions or animals what-so-ever."

 

Fan "OH MY GOD IT'S SOO AMAZING, I'M GOING TO DIE!!! *foams at the mouth*"

 

It's not really hypocrisy, even if we assume it's the same fan making both statements.

 

I want different things out of different games. I'll be playing ME:A because I want a game with interesting characters in a story where I can go find cool side content to do. A nice view is good to run into once in a while still, but I'm really after the content.

 

I'll be playing No Man's Sky because I want to be let loose in an ever expanding universe I can go nuts and explore at my whim. That's what they have marketed to us.

 

I don't stick to just one type of game and want everything to be like that. I would be interested in seeing BioWare actually make a exploration focused game in the style of No Man's Sky, but Mass Effect needs to be Mass Effect still. That means story driven with interesting characters and side quests to do.

[9TailsFox]

Sexy planet? I am curious what this might look like.

[SagaX]

DAI had 10 regions in the vanilla game and i felt it was too much. Why? Because of the filler feel to most of them. Couple that with the fact that most of the side content were fetch quests and we get a recipe for boredom(me) and laziness(on the developers part). 

 

Mass effect 1 had about two dozen planets to visit. How much is too much? Will MEA have the same amount or more? The risk to having say 50 planets to visit sounds great on paper and fits in with the theme of exploration but will ultimately be mired down with the fact that people will get bored if there is no engaging content in the form of proper side-quests with cinematics, characters, a story etc...

 

Btw i dont think Bioware is up for it with giving us 50 visitable planets unless the regions are very small and samey. I think about 30 if i were to guess a fair number.

It wont happen in MEA, because of the difficulty system of both games.

Since DAI has more RPG elements, it requires you to level up to have higher stats. ME has more action elements, meaning you are NOT requires to meet level to be competent, but is your own gaming skills.

Thats why DAI has so many side quests and ME3 has a few, and will have a few. Its not too much if they dont force you and you can choose what sidequests to do or ignore. But even so DAI does not forces you to do all sidequest, just go directly to story quests, unless youre a completionist

 

Honestly I hope the give a good quantity of planets and in planet areas, specially in MP.

[Sylvius the Mad]

In that case, I'd recruit him with a character who might be motivated to do so (or at least, isn't likely to be completely at odds with me) - maybe an easygoing, atheist Cadash rogue, as opposed to a devout, stuck up stickybeak Trevelyan circle mage. And hey, that's something to look forward to in my next game.

I do this exact thing. If there's some content I think would be interesting, but my current character won't do it, I'll construct a subsequent character specifically to take advantage of that option.

These are often my best playthroughs, as the rest of the character's personality needs to be compatible with that choice, and I might not have designed that specific personality otherwise. The Warden I'm currently using in my Inquisition world state arose from this: I needed a mage who would turn in Jowan, and she turned out to be a lot of fun.

They do nevertheless. For many players, gamerscore is king.

I think they have an epistemic responsibility to understand why.

[Sylvius the Mad]

I feel like a lot of people define 'side-content' as 'content not necessary to the main plot'. So, for example, the companion quests in DA: I are 'side-content' - indeed, pretty much the only side-content in that game that I enjoy - even though they're entirely story-driven.

But you're not forced to do it in order to proceed in the "story" of the game, as most people understand it. You have to find your own motivation to do it (which is a huge positive, I think).

Most of BioWare's side -content has traditionally been story-driven to some extent, even if that story is as simple as Dagna wanting to go study the arcane in DA: O, necessitating that you go speak to the archmage. Inquisition, with its mountains of largely story-less side-activities, is the exception.

How is Dagna's quest any different from a fetch quest? We are given a task to go somewhere and do a thing and then report back?

What's the difference? How is this different from collecting the Grey Warden artifacts for Blackwall?

[KirkyX]

But you're not forced to do it in order to proceed in the "story" of the game, as most people understand it. You have to find your own motivation to do it (which is a huge positive, I think).
How is Dagna's quest any different from a fetch quest? We are given a task to go somewhere and do a thing and then report back?
 

Right, it's not necessary to the main plot, and as such is side-content. However, it is 'story-driven', in that a scripted story is expressed, and the primary point of the activity is to progress through that scripted story--that's as opposed to, say, astrarium-solving, in which the primary point of the activity is to solve astrariums, ultimately unlocking some loot. This is all semantics, of course, but the main plot isn't the only 'story' in the game, and the point of even making the definition between story-driven and non-story-driven content in this case is to establish the difference between quests like the companion stories, and activities like shard hunting.

 

What's the difference? How is this different from collecting the Grey Warden artifacts for Blackwall?

 

 

 

Because it's far more focused - I converse with Dagna, I converse with the archmage, then I converse with Dagna again - and less about simply filling up a bar/ticking items off a list? If Dagna asked me to go collect twenty bits of nug poop so she could disguise herself as a barrel of manure to escape Orzammar, there'd still be a 'story' to the quest, but the ratio of story to tedious gameplay - which, to me, collectable hunting tends to be - would be far greater. Technically speaking, there's even a story to all the shard hunting in DA: I, but that story is incredibly thin, proportionate to the amount of time you have to spend to complete the activity, as contrasted with most - though not all - pre-Inquisition BioWare side content. There's clearly a divide between the two sorts of content, or so many people wouldn't have noticed - and commented upon, either in approval or disapproval - DA: I's preponderance of 'filler' following its release.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Right, it's not necessary to the main plot, and as such is side-content. However, it is 'story-driven', in that a scripted story is expressed, and the primary point of the activity is to progress through that scripted story--that's as opposed to, say, astrarium-solving, in which the primary point of the activity is to solve astrariums, ultimately unlocking some loot. This is all semantics, of course, but the main plot isn't the only 'story' in the game, and the point of even making the definition between story-driven and non-story-driven content in this case is to establish the difference between quests like the companion stories, and activities like shard hunting.


Because it's far more focused - I converse with Dagna, I converse with the archmage, then I converse with Dagna again - and less about simply filling up a bar/ticking items off a list? If Dagna asked me to go collect twenty bits of nug poop so she could disguise herself as a barrel of manure to escape Orzammar, there'd still be a 'story' to the quest, but the ratio of story to tedious gameplay - which, to me, collectable hunting tends to be - would be far greater. Technically speaking, there's even a story to all the shard hunting in DA: I, but that story is incredibly thin, proportionate to the amount of time you have to spend to complete the activity, as contrasted with most - though not all - pre-Inquisition BioWare side content. There's clearly a divide between the two sorts of content, or so many people wouldn't have noticed - and commented upon, either in approval or disapproval - DA: I's preponderance of 'filler' following its release.

So it's a difference in degree, not in kind. The complaint isn't that it's the wrong sort of quest, but that the quest is insufficiently engaging.

Given the sheer volume of quests in DAI relative to limited the need we have for the reward (Power), it seems to me that not all the quests need to be engaging for any particular player.

[Dutch's Ghost]

                                                                                      <<<<<<<<<<(0)>>>>>>>>>>

 

With 100 possible planets and high resolution textures for that graphic awesomeness, I'd say 40GB+ digital download.  Also, I can't see Bio populating 100 planets with meaningful content and I don't count exceptional  terrain visuals as content.. I'm hoping 15 will have massive things to do and another 20 - 30 with minor (ie: the fetch quests, alien Outposts).

 

Of course, Bio mentioned we must look for resources, ergo exploring planets for the minerals. Ergo, many planets will have just that and some will have nothing.

 

Executive Summary

1.- 15 planets with massive content

2.- 20-30 planets with minor content

3.- the rest are free to be explored.

 

Where did you get the 100 number from?

[Dutch's Ghost]

I wouldn't blame achievements for that. I would blame Fear of Missing Out.

Like, sure, this character would never recruit Iron Bull, but what if he has great character writing? I'll never know if I don't recruit him.

 

A man never leaves no stone unturned. 

[Shechinah]

Where did you get the 100 number from?

 

Think it might have been from the leaked survey long ago. Don't know if it was confirmed legit. It may just be that a number of people people assumed legit because of the Inquisition leaked survey.
 

[KirkyX]

So it's a difference in degree, not in kind. The complaint isn't that it's the wrong sort of quest, but that the quest is insufficiently engaging.

Given the sheer volume of quests in DAI relative to limited the need we have for the reward (Power), it seems to me that not all the quests need to be engaging for any particular player.

Ah, but my primary issue with the unengaging side-content in Inquisition was that it completely discouraged exploration of those incredibly pretty open world zones they put together - for me, at least - because the vast, vast majority of the stuff you'd find was, well, unengaging. Almost all the engaging content was localised around Skyhold/Haven, as that's where you initiated all the main and companion quests.

 

Contrast this with The Witcher 3, where you'd find dense, story-driven side quests over every other hillock, and far fewer forgettable collectathons, and you get to the core of my problem with DA: I's filler. If ME: A - a game that'll supposedly be emphasising exploration - suffers from the same problem, I probably won't have nearly as much fun with it as I have with the other ME games - well, 3 aside, 'cause I can't stand that game for entirely different reasons - and the rest of BioWare's older titles.

[Andrew Lucas]

TW3 is a benchmark for Bioware to reach. As for not every planet being filled with missions, I don't have an issue with that as long as there's enough meat elsewhere - like the dev said, exploration is a big part, and I can't wait to see these beautiful landscapes.

[Cyonan]

Ah, but my primary issue with the unengaging side-content in Inquisition was that it completely discouraged exploration of those incredibly pretty open world zones they put together - for me, at least - because the vast, vast majority of the stuff you'd find was, well, unengaging. Almost all the engaging content was localised around Skyhold/Haven, as that's where you initiated all the main and companion quests.

 

Contrast this with The Witcher 3, where you'd find dense, story-driven side quests over every other hillock, and far fewer forgettable collectathons, and you get to the core of my problem with DA: I's filler. If ME: A - a game that'll supposedly be emphasising exploration - suffers from the same problem, I probably won't have nearly as much fun with it as I have with the other ME games - well, 3 aside, 'cause I can't stand that game for entirely different reasons - and the rest of BioWare's older titles.

 

On top of that, most of the side content in Inquisition sides more towards the not story driven stuff and there is a power requirement to do main quests so side content is mandatory to some level. No one specific side activity or quest is itself mandatory, but there is a sort of "faffing about" quota the player must meet before continuing on with the main story. This usually means grinding out some boring content, especially in the early game before you have all the companion quests unlocked and the best source of power is closing rifts.

 

Meanwhile The Witcher 3 took getting a frying pan for an old lady and gave it an interesting story to it.

[Sylvius the Mad]

On top of that, most of the side content in Inquisition sides more towards the not story driven stuff and there is a power requirement to do main quests so side content is mandatory to some level. No one specific side activity or quest is itself mandatory, but there is a sort of "faffing about" quota the player must meet before continuing on with the main story. This usually means grinding out some boring content, especially in the early game before you have all the companion quests unlocked and the best source of power is closing rifts.

Meanwhile The Witcher 3 took getting a frying pan for an old lady and gave it an interesting story to it.

How much control does the player get over that story?

I really should play TW3, even though I know I'll hate the combat.

[KirkyX]

How much control does the player get over that story?

I really should play TW3, even though I know I'll hate the combat.

You get a decent amount of control over the actual progression of the main plot, and most of the individual quests can have quite a few different outcomes - and this is all done in a refreshingly non-obvious way, with no big 'final decision' making all the difference - but you play a pre-defined character, who's already been established over the course of a series of books that, obviously, had no need to account for 'reader-choice', so you may find that somewhat restrictive.

[FKA_Servo]

How much control does the player get over that story?

I really should play TW3, even though I know I'll hate the combat.

 

TW3 is excellent. It converted me to the franchise, and more than made up for the first game, which is still one of the worst I've ever played. I found that it gave me enough control over the narrative and of Geralt's character to craft a supremely satisfying story.

 

I went into it with certain desires and expectations (not unlike the desires and expectations I have of Mass Effect - honestly, TW has more in common with that franchise than any of Bioware's other games, and especially with DA). As an action game, it's a lot of fun, the music is wonderful, the art design is wonderful, and the level of care and attention to fine detail is staggering. It's got a ton of feathers in its cap.

 

It's a bad RPG , as I would consider the term, and certainly as you would consider it, I imagine. But that's fine. It's one of the best games I've ever played.

[Cyonan]

How much control does the player get over that story?

I really should play TW3, even though I know I'll hate the combat.

 

It's a solid amount of control. More so than Inquisition offered and as Kirby said, the final outcome is more a culmination of choices rather than a simple "Choose A, B or C" at the end.

 

The main thing I would suspect you'll not like other than combat, is the fact that you're stuck playing Geralt and the game offers as much, if not less, room to RP that as Mass Effect 3 does for Shep. He's very much a pre-defined character and has a pre-set backstory to him as set out by previous games and books.

 

You do still get some choice, but not a lot of it in terms of roleplaying Geralt.

[KirkyX]

TW3 is excellent. It converted me to the franchise, and more than made up for the first game, which is still one of the worst I've ever played. I found that it gave me enough control over the narrative and of Geralt's character to craft a supremely satisfying story.

 

I went into it with certain desires and expectations (not unlike the desires and expectations I have of Mass Effect - honestly, TW has more in common with that franchise than any of Bioware's other games, and especially with DA). As an action game, it's a lot of fun, the music is wonderful, the art design is wonderful, and the level of care and attention to fine detail is staggering. It's got a ton of feathers in its cap.

 

It's a bad RPG , as I would consider the term, and certainly as you would consider it, I imagine. But that's fine. It's one of the best games I've ever played.

The Witcher 3 moved CDPR from 'developer I like' - off the back of The Witcher 2, mainly for how much I admired their commitment to making player choice matter in that game - to 'developer I love/do this again and you'll dethrone Obsidian as my absolute favourite'--it's just, bar pretty much nothing, one of the greatest experiences I've ever had in gaming. It's a really effective sequel to the books, too.

 

I really hope they manage it again with Cyberpunk.

[The Elder King]

Where did you get the 100 number from?

The leak of last year, prior to MEA's official announcement.

[SKAR]

I'd like to spend as much time as possible. And when I finish the story, explore more.

[The Elder King]

I might be wrong, but I think Sylvius meant how much control Geralt had over the old lady and her frying pan story.

[KirkyX]

as Kirby said

Spoiler

[FKA_Servo]

The Witcher 3 moved CDPR from 'developer I like' - off the back of The Witcher 2, mainly for how much I admired their commitment to making player choice matter in that game - to 'developer I love/do this again and you'll dethrone Obsidian as my absolute favourite'--it's just, bar pretty much nothing, one of the greatest experiences I've ever had in gaming. It's a really effective sequel to the books, too.

 

I really hope they manage it again with Cyberpunk.

 

They've certainly showed an unprecedented capacity for improvement as a studio. I believe TW1 is their first game. It blows my mind that TW3 is only their third.

 

TW2 was OK. I really enjoyed it when I finally played it, but that might be because it was right on the heels of TW1. TW1 was painful even with the god mods I resorted to to bypass the gameplay. The plot design and act 2 was incredible in theory, but the execution fell a bit short of the ambition, I think. The music also sucked, which is surprising, considering it was one of the four positive things I could come up with about TW1 when I tried and failed to think of five things I liked about it.

 

TW3 kind of stands them both in the corner.