78 réponses à ce sujet

[Dutch's Ghost]

I consider Witcher contracts as filler. Apart from it's his job, he does the same thing everytime. It's on a par with the searching for shards. Shards gave stat points, Witcher contract give mutagens to make decoctions. So they are both filler, but worth doing. Actually the contracts do get a lot criticism for overuse of witcher senses.

TW3 even has environmental story telling, not as much as DAI, but it's there.

The big difference is that TW3 has way more "Quality" content akin to DAI's companion quests. This is what I want more of when I want more meaningful quests, and you don't have to rip any of the DAI content to achieve that.

No way shape or form can DAI's shards be comparable to tw3 monster contracts.

[capn233]

All I know is "Skyhold" is was one stupid name for a hub... or... anything.

They just needed Adele to sing the theme song for it.

[nfi42]

I don't see this "way more" you do. Most of the optional content are points of interest and contracts. The quests not like that certainly do not vastly out number the companion quests or the Skyhold judgements. No one has even begun to prove that claim of way more. I believe it simply comes from "I like this game more" than any objective measurement.

And I am mot arguing that I wouldn't like more companion content like quests in a Bioware game. It is just this continued claim that Inquisition was mostly filler and TW3 was not needs to end. It is a merritless claim simply born from a sense of goodwill fans have for TW3 or its presentation. I mean, I have seen people try to claim TW3 had more meaningful sidequests than Fallout and that clearly has no basis.

 

 

Just look at the number of main quests and side quests in the journal of TW3 and compare this with DAI.  Note that points of interest, contracts, nor treasure hunts are not classified as main or side quest. FO4 is in my backlog, so can't comment.

 

In any case,  if you argue you would like more companion content like quests,  then we want the same thing. This is what this thread is about.

[nfi42]

No way shape or form can DAI's shards be comparable to tw3 monster contracts.

 

TW3 contracts have nice cut scenes and a bit of story which is good.  They also are pretty much all the same. Talk to quest giver, use witcher senses, kill monster.  I still enjoyed doing them but it's still filler.

 

The reason I compared collecting shards and contracts is that they both give you a useful thing.  Mutagens to make decoctions for TW3,  collecting shards gives stats boosts.  

[straykat]

I think as far as those cutscenes go, what they did is what Bioware used to do. DAO is full of side quests injected with that little bit of cinema or personality. Witcher 3 just did Bioware better (and shinier).

 

But I still think open worlds need to be sandboxes first. If a game isn't going to do that, I don't know why they bother with such big spaces.

[ArchangelN7]

I hope side quests are good and have cool little storylines to boot, however in regards to side quests having to make you feel important because your an inquisitor or some space hero is way to much expectation, mostly because side quests are just that side quests to break up the main plot and give you different options away from the central story, i do agree about fetch quests they can be boring however if bioware gives them cool little story's i'd enjoy them more, kinda like witcher 3 where the side missions were just as good as some of the main quests.

[Helios969]

It's all about implementation.  TW3 was successful in side content not because it was fundamentally different, but because it rewarded you by allowing you to see how it impacted a quest-giver or village.

 

Take the rams meat quest in DAI, which embodies everything wrong with the side content.  If instead of just scurrying off to retrieve the meat after a few words letting you know people might starve you had a cutscene panning across the refugee camp to see the desperation on the peoples faces, it suddenly gives the player a sense of urgency...that many peoples' survival depends on you bringing back some food.  At the end of the quest it would be much better to instead of getting a bit of gold you get to see a cutscene of the relief on peoples' faces when they're handed a plate of food.  Maybe even get invited to a feast later.  This could then lead to additional quests for helping these refugees either by finding them more permanent settlements to be a part of or making a self-sustaining community where they currently reside.

[The Dank Warden]

well, if they put a 105mm gun to the mako, add 1-3 treshermaws to the map and a few geth/bandits i wouldn't mind the size of the map... oh wait!

[Xerxes52]

well, if they put a 105mm gun to the mako, add 1-3 treshermaws to the map and a few geth/bandits i wouldn't mind the size of the map... oh wait!

 

Or at least the ability to camp out on a hill a few kilometers away from an enemy encampment with a sniper rifle.

[Helios969]

Or at least the ability to camp out on a hill a few kilometers away from an enemy encampment with a sniper rifle.

I'm down for that but I hope it would emulate the real life difficulties of making such a shot...(range, windage, elevation drop) - and have an enemy AI smart enough to find you if you take that second shot. The fricking DAI enemies would run around in circles if I was striking with a staff from a high vantage point just out of their circle of engagement range.  It was a bit humorous at first, but wears quickly.

[jamskinner]

Hello,

 

One of my gripes with Inquisition(I Use inquisition as an example because it is an open world bioware game) is the design of side quests. I am at a point where I am the leader of the inquisition but I still have to chase down a Halla like I do not have more important things to accomplish. My request with Mass Effect is that side quests should be meaningful and correspond to the current plotline.

 

Nice recursion you got there!  I hated doing  recursive towers of Hanoi in class.

[In Exile]

TW3 contracts have nice cut scenes and a bit of story which is good. They also are pretty much all the same. Talk to quest giver, use witcher senses, kill monster. I still enjoyed doing them but it's still filler.

The reason I compared collecting shards and contracts is that they both give you a useful thing. Mutagens to make decoctions for TW3, collecting shards gives stats boosts.

TW3 doesn't have companions or banter, though. And that makes it easier to invest in dialogue for quests like the monster hunts.

[ArchangelN7]

It's all about implementation.  TW3 was successful in side content not because it was fundamentally different, but because it rewarded you by allowing you to see how it impacted a quest-giver or village.

 

Take the rams meat quest in DAI, which embodies everything wrong with the side content.  If instead of just scurrying off to retrieve the meat after a few words letting you know people might starve you had a cutscene panning across the refugee camp to see the desperation on the peoples faces, it suddenly gives the player a sense of urgency...that many peoples' survival depends on you bringing back some food.  At the end of the quest it would be much better to instead of getting a bit of gold you get to see a cutscene of the relief on peoples' faces when they're handed a plate of food.  Maybe even get invited to a feast later.  This could then lead to additional quests for helping these refugees either by finding them more permanent settlements to be a part of or making a self-sustaining community where they currently reside.

Exactly well said, it also makes you as a player more invested in the world.

[Dutch's Ghost]

TW3 contracts have nice cut scenes and a bit of story which is good. They also are pretty much all the same. Talk to quest giver, use witcher senses, kill monster. I still enjoyed doing them but it's still filler.

The reason I compared collecting shards and contracts is that they both give you a useful thing. Mutagens to make decoctions for TW3, collecting shards gives stats boosts.

All side content can be considered filler by your logic. Witcher contracts are not filler like shard collecting. One more thing, contracts give you weapons and exp alongside the mutagen while shards will only give you the stat boosts once you've collected a certain amount and traveled to oasis. It's apples and oranges, essentially.

[Dutch's Ghost]

Moreover, contracts like aparian phantom change the in-game world. Example, when you kill the hound of the wild hunt, workers from the halflings manor will go back to constructing the house that was previously abandoned due to the hound.

[nfi42]

All side content can be considered filler by your logic. Witcher contracts are not filler like shard collecting. One more thing, contracts give you weapons and exp alongside the mutagen while shards will only give you the stat boosts once you've collected a certain amount and traveled to oasis. It's apples and oranges, essentially.

 

 

Moreover, contracts like aparian phantom change the in-game world. Example, when you kill the hound of the wild hunt, workers from the halflings manor will go back to constructing the house that was previously abandoned due to the hound.

 

All these thing make contracts better filler for sure,  but they are not as important as nor as good as the side and main quests in TW3.  They have there own heading in the Journal to distinguish them. Even a 2 minute quest like The frying pan one in white orchard is better than the contracts because it gives some useful background to a certain spy who appears in main quests much later on

 

The distinction for me is that TW3 would not be worse for having left contracts out.  The only reason I compared them to shards was because there was a beneficial outcome to both.

 

 

[In Exile]

I think TW3 would be worse without the contracts. Geralt is a monster hunter. It's important to have quests where he hunts monsters.

[Kabraxal]

Just look at the number of main quests and side quests in the journal of TW3 and compare this with DAI.  Note that points of interest, contracts, nor treasure hunts are not classified as main or side quest. FO4 is in my backlog, so can't comment.
 
In any case,  if you argue you would like more companion content like quests,  then we want the same thing. This is what this thread is about.

If we include main quests then naturally TW3 would have a longer quest listing... The boring main quest drags on and on and on. And those side quests didn't stand out all that much for me as non repetitive quality. They had more cutscenes, but a great deal of them were "talk, follow/travel, kill". The political machinations is the only side quest that really stuck out as something a little different. Well, that and the drinking scene between the Witchers. That scene shiws CDPR can break free of the bland repition. Wish the rest of the game could match that scene. As for the quests, if we count only quests that offer substantive change, then TW3 and DA:I are still about equal. Outside of the main story, the side content only offers a few notable differences in outcomes. Nothing more substantive than the differences one can affect in Inquisition's companion content (especially post Tresspasser).

It really just is a matter of liking the delivery style. Inquisition rightfully spent the money and effort on giving cutscenes for companion content and customisation instead of funneling it all into cinematic close ups and long sweeping shots in minor quests. I think people do not understand that banter, branching relationships, and the amount of small details around the companions is time intensive and expensive. I mean, they have talked anout word budgets before. So in the end, it did come down to more in depth companion content and more cinematic minor quests. Considering Bioware rightly chose companions and still blew TW3 out of the discussion with environmental storytelling... I don't understand the complaints.

To bring it back to ME a little: The biggest sin of ME3's endings was actually that it lost the character focus. ME showed signs of tacking back in the right direction with DLC. And like Inquisition, Citadel's focus was on companion content. Which brings up the question: Would you rather have more content like the Citadel or content like Arrival and Leviathan? Personally I prefer Citadel character based content. And that is why I can play Inquisition 100+ hours each run and why I had to force myself to beat TW3 twice... And hating nearly every second of the second run (I blame these topics for forcing me to complete that second run I abandoned). I want Andromeda to be an amazingly designed universe with deep lore, great environmental storytelling, and a heavy focus on character and companion content for the side quests That is the type of meaningful optional content that has made Bioware one of the best devs in gaming. And that is what Inquisition and its optional content delivered while a game like TW3 only frustrates me... And why I want ME to take more cues from Inquisition than The Witcher 3.

TLDR version: TW3's quests were not that substantive to me outside of two moments. Inquisition focused on the companion content and succeeded where TW3 failed. ME:A needs to be more like Inquisition (or The Citadel DLC) than The Witcher.

[nfi42]

I think TW3 would be worse without the contracts. Geralt is a monster hunter. It's important to have quests where he hunts monsters.

 

I still enjoy doing the contracts myself,  I know many that don't because of them all having the same mechanic. it's certainly better filler than the question marks and treasure hunts.

[CronoDragoon]

I still enjoy doing the contracts myself,  I know many that don't because of them all having the same mechanic. it's certainly better filler than the question marks and treasure hunts.

 

That mechanic's unfortunately pervasive to most of TW3's quest design. I like Assassin's Creed but now also resent it for introducing this detective mode gameplay that now functions as a crutch for so many games that can't be bothered to invent interesting gameplay design. TW3 succeeds despite terrible quest design because it has interesting stories for a lot of the side stuff.

 

As for TW3, there were multiple times during the game, especially the absolutely awful Novigrad section (in which there's a point of the main story where you're using Witcher senses to find something you need in order to help an ex-lover of Dandelion so that you can find Dandelion so that you can try and find Ciri), where I thought to myself that it would be a better game without a main quest at all. Instead, it would retain the area quests (Bloody Baron, Skellige succession, etc) while focusing on involved monster hunting, which I found to be the only interesting part of the Witcher world's lore anyway.

[nfi42]

TLDR version: TW3's quests were not that substantive to me outside of two moments. Inquisition focused on the companion content and succeeded where TW3 failed. ME:A needs to be more like Inquisition (or The Citadel DLC) than The Witcher.

 

 I don't have any issue with this,  that's your opinion and that's fine, we all like different things.  This thread is for those that did not like the balance of filler to meaty story.  It's possible to do both.

 

Forget TW3,  it wasn't raised in this thread until you mentioned that other game.  I want a Bioware game and I suspect most of us in this thread do as well. All the previous DA and ME games had vastly more meaty main and companion quests. 

 

ME3 ending was stupid, end of story.  It had nothing to do with characters and everything to do with Bioware writing themselves into a hole they could not get out of.

[x Raizer x]

Inquisition's quests weren't all that bad.  A bit repetitive, but that is the nature of some RPG quests.

I feel in the Mass Effect universe, even the standard repetitive quests could be spiced up quite a bit considering the setting.

[nfi42]

That mechanic's unfortunately pervasive to most of TW3's quest design. I like Assassin's Creed but now also resent it for introducing this detective mode gameplay that now functions as a crutch for so many games that can't be bothered to invent interesting gameplay design. TW3 succeeds despite terrible quest design because it has interesting stories for a lot of the side stuff.

 

As for TW3, there were multiple times during the game, especially the absolutely awful Novigrad section (in which there's a point of the main story where you're using Witcher senses to find something you need in order to help an ex-lover of Dandelion so that you can find Dandelion so that you can try and find Ciri), where I thought to myself that it would be a better game without a main quest at all. Instead, it would retain the area quests (Bloody Baron, Skellige succession, etc) while focusing on involved monster hunting, which I found to be the only interesting part of the Witcher world's lore anyway.

 

That thread to find Dandelion was convoluted, agree.  Needed more exposition for the wild hunt too. 

 

Witcher senses appeared  in some side and main quests, but not in the same rinse repeat way as the contracts.

 

I've talked enough about TW3 in this thread,  I'm stopping now.

[Kabraxal]

I don't have any issue with this,  that's your opinion and that's fine, we all like different things.  This thread is for those that did not like the balance of filler to meaty story.  It's possible to do both.
 
Forget TW3,  it wasn't raised in this thread until you mentioned that other game.  I want a Bioware game and I suspect most of us in this thread do as well. All the previous DA and ME games had vastly more meaty main and companion quests. 
 
ME3 ending was stupid, end of story.  It had nothing to do with characters and everything to do with Bioware writing themselves into a hole they could not get out of.

With the budgets in gaming it hasn't been possible yet. TW3 has extremely limited companion like content. Most of the character interactions are simply devices to advance a quest. TW3 needes more scenes like the Witchers drinking. Instead, the devs focused on the other style of optional content. And I was not the first to mention the Witcher in this thread. And Origins had as much "get this, take it to x" quests with minimal cutscenes and ME1 and 2 weren't all that different. So again, not seeing this claim that Inquisition suffered more from an imbalance than the listed games.

And not saying those endings weren't stupid at all. Just that of all the problems with those endings, the fact we see few character reactions or no in depth epilogue to show how the characters ended up living was the biggest and most glaring flaw. If that had been there, the hate would have been muted at least a little. But instead we got railroaded into a psuedo intellectual attempt at man v machine and everything else was pushed to the side.

[nfi42]

With the budgets in gaming it hasn't been possible yet. TW3 has extremely limited companion like content. Most of the character interactions are simply devices to advance a quest. TW3 needes more scenes like the Witchers drinking. Instead, the devs focused on the other style of optional content. And I was not the first to mention the Witcher in this thread. And Origins had as much "get this, take it to x" quests with minimal cutscenes and ME1 and 2 weren't all that different. So again, not seeing this claim that Inquisition suffered more from an imbalance than the listed games.

And not saying those endings weren't stupid at all. Just that of all the problems with those endings, the fact we see few character reactions or no in depth epilogue to show how the characters ended up living was the biggest and most glaring flaw. If that had been there, the hate would have been muted at least a little. But instead we got railroaded into a psuedo intellectual attempt at man v machine and everything else was pushed to the side.

 

They are different games. One has companions the other doesn't.  I don't mind either type of game, it seems companion content is more important to you.

 

I believe it can be done.  Prerelease footage showed alot of content that was cut.  Other open world games not including that other game have loads more main/side quest than DAI.

 

As I said, in a separate post,  I'm not going to talk any more in this thread about that other game.