124 réponses à ce sujet

[SofaJockey]

In DA:I, they tried to do that by not having cinematic cutscenes all the time, and trying to tell more stories by way of archeology. That was a flop. This is why I think - if they're facing the same cost curve - all they can do is have better design. 

 

A classic example is the DAI side-quest 'Hunger Pangs'.

 

The settlers are starving and need someone to collect 10 Ram Meat.

 

If the procedural animation was better you could see the conversation properly (as Bethesda does without animated cutscenes)

A limited animation showing starving settlers (and after enjoying enjoing food) would make all the difference.

 

A couple of graves after failure or a couple more settlers after success would also give the quest a payoff.

 

Many quests are ultimately 'fetch this', it's how they are set up and paid off that matters.

[panzerwzh]

At this point you should wait for a sale on either one.

I'm surprised that TW3 initially sold cheaper. I don't recall that happening here. But companies approach different markets differently.

It is a reward for loyal customers (a.k.a. owners of TW1 and 2). 

[panzerwzh]

A classic example is the DAI side-quest 'Hunger Pangs'.

 

The settlers are starving and need someone to collect 10 Ram Meat.

 

If the procedural animation was better you could see the conversation properly (as Bethesda does without animated cutscenes)

A limited animation showing starving settlers (and after enjoying enjoing food) would make all the difference.

 

A couple of graves after failure or a couple more settlers after success would also give the quest a payoff.

 

Many quests are ultimately 'fetch this', it's how they are set up and paid off that matters.

This is the alpha footage of DAI. It has much better character interaction and player choices/consequences than the final product.

I'm kind of understand why there wasn't any alpha footage of MEA in E3.

https://youtu.be/ZoB1vM0paqs?t=12m01s

[SofaJockey]

This is the alpha footage of DAI. It has much better character interaction and player choices/consequences than the final product.

I'm kind of understand why there wasn't any alpha footage of MEA in E3.

https://youtu.be/ZoB1vM0paqs?t=12m01s

 

The way I'm reading it is that when they were heading to alpha, the penny dropped that the last gen versions were melting...

The  only choice aside of further delay was to strip out whole features.

[panzerwzh]

The way I'm reading it is that when they were heading to alpha, the penny dropped that the last gen versions were melting...

The  only choice aside of further delay was to strip out whole features.

Then they decide to ditch the last gen version anyway. Commercial genius indeed.

[nfi42]

Then they decide to ditch the last gen version anyway. Commercial genius indeed.

 

EA had already milked the last gen console players of any profit in that sector.

[panzerwzh]

EA had already milked the last gen console players of any profit in that sector.

That is pretty much it. EA dairy never changes, thus I would wait for the GOTY version of MEA on sale.

[Pasquale1234]

Highlighting this. People talk about how optional content is optional, so we don't have to play it. Okay, but how am I to know what will be an interesting quest and what won't when it's truly only a small percentage that I consider interesting, and those quests are interspersed with the rest? Like you said, it's fairly obvious that the Chantry board/mages' collective/planet scanning quests are optional and won't effect any major quests. But all DAI side quests "look" the same when we receive them. There is the one main quest per zone, but everything else is jumbled together.

Fair point - but OTOH, being presented as they were can help to make the world feel more "real", and quest access more organic.

I suppose they could have people wanting someone to do minor errands gathered around a notice board of some sort. The board quests in DAO were all given and rewarded by the same person, so there were fewer characters with whom you could interact.
 

And really, I dislike the mentality that if something is optional it's okay if it's not great. A player shouldn't give boring content a pass because it's not part of the main plot. And a developer should want to produce the best content in 100% of their game, not just in major sections.

Firstly, whether any particular quest is boring is subjective.

Secondly, I think that part of what is going on in DAI is world-building. These are individuals who have all been impacted by the current state of the world in different ways, and their concerns reflect that fact.

Also, these quests can be role-playing opportunities. One quest in particular that comes to mind was the widower in Redcliffe who had been prevented from delivering flowers to his wife's grave due to the hostilities. How your Inquisitor deals with that says something about their values and priorities - it allows you to express something about the character. (FWIW, I personally chose to deliver the flowers when I happened to be in the area.)

I do think the requisitions could have been handled a lot better. As near as I can tell, they exist primarily as a way to gain rewards (power, influence) for turning in collected resources. Out of curiosity, I did the exact same requisition 3 times in a row, just to see if there were any different ones for that area - and there were. They should at the very least cycle through all of the available ones once before repeating any of them.

Requisitions were sort of the notice boards of DAI.
 

A classic example is the DAI side-quest 'Hunger Pangs'.

The settlers are starving and need someone to collect 10 Ram Meat.

If the procedural animation was better you could see the conversation properly (as Bethesda does without animated cutscenes)
A limited animation showing starving settlers (and after enjoying enjoing food) would make all the difference.

I agree that would be helpful, assuming they have the resource bandwidth to do it.
 

A couple of graves after failure or a couple more settlers after success would also give the quest a payoff.

That would be some great environmental storytelling, but I have to wonder how many people would a) notice, and B) realize that there's a difference in the outcomes - particularly since you would not be seeing both possible outcomes in the same playthrough.
 

Many quests are ultimately 'fetch this', it's how they are set up and paid off that matters.

For me, a lot of the payoff in an RPG is how my character feels about her choices and actions - which aren't always shown by the devs.

[AlanC9]

Then they decide to ditch the last gen version anyway. Commercial genius indeed.

There was an alternative? Lose 15-20% of sales right off the top and you're probably done.

[In Exile]

Nope, in the great down under, I got my DAI for Au$ 89.99 on Origin without any free stuff and TW3 for Au$ 75 (I got TW 1&2 already) with all free DLCs and expansion pass from GOG. I spent 38 hours in DAI while almost 500 in TW3 so the value/hour ratio is significantly different.

GOG is very good about currency conversion. As the CAD fell relative to the USD, I've really felt the difference. That said, value/hour is awful as an awful standard, because it's totally subjective.

[In Exile]

A classic example is the DAI side-quest 'Hunger Pangs'.

The settlers are starving and need someone to collect 10 Ram Meat.

If the procedural animation was better you could see the conversation properly (as Bethesda does without animated cutscenes)
A limited animation showing starving settlers (and after enjoying enjoing food) would make all the difference.

A couple of graves after failure or a couple more settlers after success would also give the quest a payoff.

Many quests are ultimately 'fetch this', it's how they are set up and paid off that matters.

It is a classic example but not in the way you think. It's actually a "sub" quest. The actual "quest" in the crossroads is supposed to be the "built up the crossroads" quest. The way it's conceptually structured is as follows:

1) After you talk to Gisele you're supposed to talk to Sargeant what's his face, who tells you about all the stuff that needs doing around the Crossroads
2) You talk to all the NPCs around the village and hear about how awful this place is and get minor quests
3) While exploring the world you do all these issues to get the crossroads running
4) You come back to Sargeant what's his face and get a reward, which can include an agent or reputation.

The problem with the conceptual design - putting aside the fact this is an ass quest - is that people don't really play the game like that (I actually missed there WAS a what's his face to talk to in my first playthrough)

[vbibbi]

Fair point - but OTOH, being presented as they were can help to make the world feel more "real", and quest access more organic.

I suppose they could have people wanting someone to do minor errands gathered around a notice board of some sort. The board quests in DAO were all given and rewarded by the same person, so there were fewer characters with whom you could interact.
 

Firstly, whether any particular quest is boring is subjective.

Secondly, I think that part of what is going on in DAI is world-building. These are individuals who have all been impacted by the current state of the world in different ways, and their concerns reflect that fact.

Also, these quests can be role-playing opportunities. One quest in particular that comes to mind was the widower in Redcliffe who had been prevented from delivering flowers to his wife's grave due to the hostilities. How your Inquisitor deals with that says something about their values and priorities - it allows you to express something about the character. (FWIW, I personally chose to deliver the flowers when I happened to be in the area.)

I do think the requisitions could have been handled a lot better. As near as I can tell, they exist primarily as a way to gain rewards (power, influence) for turning in collected resources. Out of curiosity, I did the exact same requisition 3 times in a row, just to see if there were any different ones for that area - and there were. They should at the very least cycle through all of the available ones once before repeating any of them.

Requisitions were sort of the notice boards of DAI.
 

I agree that would be helpful, assuming they have the resource bandwidth to do it.
 

That would be some great environmental storytelling, but I have to wonder how many people would a) notice, and realize that there's a difference in the outcomes - particularly since you would not be seeing both possible outcomes in the same playthrough.
 

For me, a lot of the payoff in an RPG is how my character feels about her choices and actions - which aren't always shown by the devs.

 

Of course the quality of the side quests will be subjective for each player. I'm referencing that on these boards I have seen the defense that "it's optional content. if it's boring, do a different quest." I don't think people saying this thought that the content was boring, but that strategy encourages a breadth of quests rather than a depth. Player A didn't like this quest? Rather than look into why they didn't like it, just make sure to offer 20 other quests and suggest they try one of those.

 

Plus this means that this strategy is really only useful after a first play through, since Player A doesn't know which quests they find interesting and which they don't.

 

And I agree in theory that the quests can be roleplaying opportunities, but I think you're being really generous with the example. It's a difference in play style, I think, that I want my cRPGs to have more structure to their roleplaying opportunities. Yes I can think to myself "I'm going to go directly from the widower to his wife's grave and put the flowers on" or "the next time I'm near that area I'll go but I'm not going out of my way" etc etc. But that is all on the player, not the game. There is no variation in the game in executing this quest. There's not even an option to decline the quest, we just leave it open in the journal.

 

I don't think every side quest needs to have massive rping opportunities, but if the game forces the player to come up with headcanon to supplement the game material, that doesn't work for me. Why should the game bother providing any actual in game roleplaying if they can rely on the player doing it all on their end?

 

It is a classic example but not in the way you think. It's actually a "sub" quest. The actual "quest" in the crossroads is supposed to be the "built up the crossroads" quest. The way it's conceptually structured is as follows:

1) After you talk to Gisele you're supposed to talk to Sargeant what's his face, who tells you about all the stuff that needs doing around the Crossroads
2) You talk to all the NPCs around the village and hear about how awful this place is and get minor quests
3) While exploring the world you do all these issues to get the crossroads running
4) You come back to Sargeant what's his face and get a reward, which can include an agent or reputation.

The problem with the conceptual design - putting aside the fact this is an ass quest - is that people don't really play the game like that (I actually missed there WAS a what's his face to talk to in my first playthrough)

 

Yeah at least in my game there wasn't a marker for Corporal Vance (?) so I had to remind myself to go see him and get the agents after everything else. I think the journal should have listed securing the Hinterlands as the main quest and have the meat, blankets, etc. as subcategories in it. As it stands, securing the Hinterlands is completed in the journal fairly quickly when we arrive so it confuses the classification of other quests that are for the same purpose.

 

This highlights how I think each zone could have had a stronger overall subplot to them. Hinterlands already has everything it needs in most of the quests, but they are all optional and not interconnected so we see their results piecemeal instead of as a whole. It's a design decision sacrifice that allows players more freedom of choice in how to play the game. I think the de-emphasis on interconnected overarching side plots is more harmful than the actual large maps that are geared toward exploration.

[Addictress]

It is a classic example but not in the way you think. It's actually a "sub" quest. The actual "quest" in the crossroads is supposed to be the "built up the crossroads" quest. The way it's conceptually structured is as follows:

1) After you talk to Gisele you're supposed to talk to Sargeant what's his face, who tells you about all the stuff that needs doing around the Crossroads
2) You talk to all the NPCs around the village and hear about how awful this place is and get minor quests
3) While exploring the world you do all these issues to get the crossroads running
4) You come back to Sargeant what's his face and get a reward, which can include an agent or reputation.

The problem with the conceptual design - putting aside the fact this is an ass quest - is that people don't really play the game like that (I actually missed there WAS a what's his face to talk to in my first playthrough)

....you're supposed to return to the sargeant when you're done?

[nfi42]

It is a classic example but not in the way you think. It's actually a "sub" quest. The actual "quest" in the crossroads is supposed to be the "built up the crossroads" quest. The way it's conceptually structured is as follows:

1) After you talk to Gisele you're supposed to talk to Sargeant what's his face, who tells you about all the stuff that needs doing around the Crossroads
2) You talk to all the NPCs around the village and hear about how awful this place is and get minor quests
3) While exploring the world you do all these issues to get the crossroads running
4) You come back to Sargeant what's his face and get a reward, which can include an agent or reputation.

The problem with the conceptual design - putting aside the fact this is an ass quest - is that people don't really play the game like that (I actually missed there WAS a what's his face to talk to in my first playthrough)

 

In the context of securing the crossroads,  I don't mind this quest, even with the flaws you raise.

 

In the context of the whole game.  Given the lack of main story, and meaty side quest,  it's not good enough.

 

TW3 even had a quest more pointless than this, the fry pan one,  but it provided some backstory to someone you meet later on. TW3 did not lack for good main story or meaty side quests, so this little 1 minute quest was fine.

[Pasquale1234]

Player A didn't like this quest? Rather than look into why they didn't like it, just make sure to offer 20 other quests and suggest they try one of those.

It sounds like you're suggesting that every single quest should meet the desires and interests of every single player. With a large player base, having a greater variety gives you a better chance of more people finding something they like.
 

Plus this means that this strategy is really only useful after a first play through, since Player A doesn't know which quests they find interesting and which they don't.

That's kinda the norm, isn't it?
 

And I agree in theory that the quests can be roleplaying opportunities, but I think you're being really generous with the example. It's a difference in play style, I think, that I want my cRPGs to have more structure to their roleplaying opportunities. Yes I can think to myself "I'm going to go directly from the widower to his wife's grave and put the flowers on" or "the next time I'm near that area I'll go but I'm not going out of my way" etc etc. But that is all on the player, not the game. There is no variation in the game in executing this quest. There's not even an option to decline the quest, we just leave it open in the journal.
 
I don't think every side quest needs to have massive rping opportunities, but if the game forces the player to come up with headcanon to supplement the game material, that doesn't work for me. Why should the game bother providing any actual in game roleplaying if they can rely on the player doing it all on their end?

Yeah, I think there's a huge difference in playstyles here. I tend to view authored content as a backdrop, or at most a framework, for role-playing. Everything my character does in the game, every choice they make, is part of the deal.

When I say choice, I don't just mean the obvious choices the writers put on the dialogue wheel. I mean which followers she takes, which armor and weapons she equips, which skills she trains, which quests she does and in what order, whether my character stands on a hilltop surveying the view below or scurries on, and what she thinks and feels when she is traveling from one point to another. All of that is content and context I'm creating in addition to whatever the devs provide.

At some point, we all decide whether and how we're role-playing our followers. For example, when you select skills, armor, and weapons or take control of Cassandra, are you role-playing Cassandra or role-playing the Inquisitor commanding Cassandra, or making a separation between character and player at that point (as in the player, not the character, is making that decision)?

I would also like to point out that some of the authored content - the structure you seem to prefer - may or may not truly reflect the Inquisitor I'm playing. For example, when asked whether she believes she's the Herald, she might respond with the truth, or she might be telling that person whatever it is she thinks they want to hear.

[Kabraxal]

It sounds like you're suggesting that every single quest should meet the desires and interests of every single player. With a large player base, having a greater variety gives you a better chance of more people finding something they like. That's kinda the norm, isn't it? Yeah, I think there's a huge difference in playstyles here. I tend to view authored content as a backdrop, or at most a framework, for role-playing. Everything my character does in the game, every choice they make, is part of the deal.When I say choice, I don't just mean the obvious choices the writers put on the dialogue wheel. I mean which followers she takes, which armor and weapons she equips, which skills she trains, which quests she does and in what order, whether my character stands on a hilltop surveying the view below or scurries on, and what she thinks and feels when she is traveling from one point to another. All of that is content and context I'm creating in addition to whatever the devs provide.At some point, we all decide whether and how we're role-playing our followers. For example, when you select skills, armor, and weapons or take control of Cassandra, are you role-playing Cassandra or role-playing the Inquisitor commanding Cassandra, or making a separation between character and player at that point (as in the player, not the character, is making that decision)?I would also like to point out that some of the authored content - the structure you seem to prefer - may or may not truly reflect the Inquisitor I'm playing. For example, when asked whether she believes she's the Herald, she might respond with the truth, or she might be telling that person whatever it is she thinks they want to hear.

The style in role playing seems to be the divide... Maybe it stems from some people starting out on the pen and paper RPGs where such role playing defined the entire experience. And Bioware has catered to that style far more than any other if you look at their history. Mass Effect is the series which limits that a little more and offers the more cinematic immersion as compared to the player driven immersion of Dragon Age. Not to say ME is a slouch for RPing. It beats most other RPGs on the market outside of Bethesda.

[In Exile]

....you're supposed to return to the sargeant when you're done?

Yeah - you have multiple options too for how to incorporate the refugees into the Inquisition, like with that cult out at the fort.

[panzerwzh]

There was an alternative? Lose 15-20% of sales right off the top and you're probably done.

Well it turns out they lose much more than just 15-20%. The damage in customer loyalty and public image is critical for Bioware, but EA didn't give a frack.

[slimgrin]

Not holding my breath on improved side quest design. Bioware is actually pretty bad when it comes to tertiary or incidental quests. So many, 'deliver the package here' scenarios. Even in DA:O and ME1. Ultimately it's up to the team leads who will need to allocate more resources and time creating unique quests. Under EA's banner, I'm not sure they'll get what's required. 

[Eelectrica]

What about it? I put 60 hrs in TW2 and extra 40 in TW2 EE which cost the same as ME3 which I deleted after 28 hours to the star brat, three colored rings and the notice for future advanture in paid DLCs. TW2 gave me much more enjoyable experiences than ME3. I don't think this is the answer you looking for.

I pre-ordered both the Witcher 3 Collectors edition and the DAI Inquisitors edition, DAI cost $210Au, Witcher 3 CE cost $199 Au. Of the two Witcher 3 CE was far superior in quality. This is comparing like with like.

- Hard cover art book

- Statue

- Medalilion

- Game music on CD, of course we can also download the lossless Flac audio files.

 

Inquisition

Lots of plastic

Cloth map - so that was cool

Tarot cards.

That was about it.

 

On the bright side I'm now cured forever of pre-ordering Bioware products, so I'll call that a win.

Have to start saving my pennies for the CP2077 CE though.

 

MEA quests... yeah make 'em interesting, unexpected dialogue twists, decision making.

In W3 that murder mystery quest was a really  good one. One we could also fail, many phases.

[nfi42]

I pre-ordered both the Witcher 3 Collectors edition and the DAI Inquisitors edition, DAI cost $210Au, Witcher 3 CE cost $199 Au. Of the two Witcher 3 CE was far superior in quality. This is comparing like with like.

- Hard cover art book

- Statue

- Medalilion

- Game music on CD, of course we can also download the lossless Flac audio files.

 

Inquisition

Lots of plastic

Cloth map - so that was cool

Tarot cards.

That was about it.

 

On the bright side I'm now cured forever of pre-ordering Bioware products, so I'll call that a win.

Have to start saving my pennies for the CP2077 CE though.

 

MEA quests... yeah make 'em interesting, unexpected dialogue twists, decision making.

In W3 that murder mystery quest was a really  good one. One we could also fail, many phases.

 

I nearly had a heart attack when looking at those prices before I realised it's for collectors editions.

[Eelectrica]

I nearly had a heart attack when looking at those prices before I realised it's for collectors editions.

One of them was worth the price, the other... well let's just I won't be ordering the 'Andromeda' edition or whatever the special edition of MEA will be called.

[nfi42]

One of them was worth the price, the other... well let's just I won't be ordering the 'Andromeda' edition or whatever the special edition of MEA will be called.

 

 

I'm happy that you enjoyed one of them. These days, green man gaming is my go to store.  Always 20% off and sometimes a lot more.  It's just pc stuff though.

[Eelectrica]

I'm happy that you enjoyed one of them. These days, green man gaming is my go to store. Always 20% off and sometimes a lot more. It's just pc stuff though.

Recently discovered GMG myself. Pretty much my go to now as well.

[TurianSpectre]

Recently discovered GMG myself. Pretty much my go to now as well.

holy **** stuff is so much cheaper there