Emptieness, DA:I, and DA4

If the map/world system is the same or similar as in Dragon Age Inquisition, then I'd say that the world needs more NPCs as quest givers and lore dumps. You barely talk to anyone in Inquisition and there's like 2-3 people you talk to each different place. Hinterlands was successful in bringing a lot of people to talk with, even if a lot of them were there for some menial quest. But at least Hinterlands felt alive, and there were four different bigger hubs with plenty of NPCs to talk to, for quests, lore and otherwise story progression, and even in between these hubs there were a few NPCs laying about.

Less quests that are initiated by notes, interacting with an object or by investigating a new place, and more NPCs please.

I wholeheartedly agree with that. There were way too many "please carry my husband's ashes/light a candle for my son/deliver this note/bury my wife's pelvis at the base of the tree where we used to fuck like rabbits" kind of quests in DAI.

Who even does that? Who would just leave their loved one's remains by the side of the road with a note saying "PLEASE FULFILL THEIR FINAL WISHES, COMPLETE STRANGER"?

Thanks all. I had heard about and talked about the involvement (and lack thereof) of NPCs in quest giving as well in another Modest Proposal on Quests. Part of the change in Inquisition was probably down to several factors including but not limited to developmental planning issues with new engine, remote locations not contusive to large numbers of people, lure of exploratory quest-giving, etc. For DA4, the locations generally look more populated (with all the caveats that early designs may not match later development) and I hope toolset familiarity and availability isn't a question. That leaves the question of zots and how best to use them because NPCs, in even a limited fashion, take a fair amount of zots from writers (and we don't want our questgivers to be too bland or flat), to artists (NPCs we interact with need better models, skins, lip-synching, etc. that standard crowd), to voice acting, quest giving NPCs just don't come cheap. I thought about some ideas that could help make the investment hurt less.

1: Use Companions to introduce more quests. This is an oldie but goodie really going back for me to Baldur's Gate 2 (you knew it was going to go there, right?). In BG2, every Companion but Minsc (and Minsc WAS a Quest himself ) had some kind of longer multi-stop quest associated with them. Some of them were actually large quests (Nalia and D'Arnisse Keep, Valygar and the Planar Sphere, Cernd and the Druid's Grove) that didn't require the character to join, just they were intimately involved with them. There was nothing like that in Inquisition though again narrative did play a role. Tying more of our Companions in DA4 to largish quests as questgivers can spread out that cost because the cost is largely baked into the Companion. Additionally, it's more realistic since we won't have a large organization of diplomats, soldiers and spies like in Inquisition and places our Companions in the world with us. For example, imagine if instead of being told by Krem about some past adventure of the Chargers, the Protagonist was actually a part of the adventure that gives rise to the tale. As The Iron Bull said, "You are the best Boss ever!"

2: Allow for some deeper NPCs to give multiple quests. For example from Inquisition, what if Mother Giselle actually gives you several quests over time on the Ferelden side? She's already a relatively large part of the early game. That would have enhanced her importance even more for Players who could care less about the Chantry and it makes logical sense as well. She obviously has a number of unofficial contacts like Sera and people do come to her (like the Magister and father of a certain Tevinter mage). Shoot, having Harding give you a couple of starter quests for each area just makes loads of sense. All this would have to be ported to DA4 which will probably have a different structure, but there are sure to be a few NPCs that are aligned with us that can fit the bill. After all, we have Chest Hair on our back (Wait! That didn't come out right...)

3: Deepen questgivers that exist by giving them Lore to share instead of sitting on the table/barrel/bed next to them. This is more a realism thing than efficiency but it does at least mean zots are rolled in together. Most societies until fairly recently passed knowledge not by writing but by speaking and story-telling. Like the Storyteller in Redcliff, let more NPCs tell us the basics then add the full lore (better organized this time please) in the Codex. It will enrich the whole game.

I will have more (and I haven't forgotten about what you said dagless) but I need to go be a Dad.

For the [skip], the answer is gamers changed. Pillars of Eternity Deadfire also use the BG2 wide-open Chapter 2 and people also have an issue with it there too. And Deadfire has no power/money to gather, the map is wide open you after the first island and you just hunt for clues for the main quest. It's all very directionless and a lots of gamers don't like that.

As for the Exalted Plains. I both like and hate the place. I like it because it has some nice lore around, but I hate the navigation on the map (2 places blocked by war table missions and lots of big rocks forcing you to go around) and the color palette is very brown.

I wouldn't say that DAI is very empty (bar the Hissing Wastes), rather that the content isn't very interesting, and completing it isn't very rewarding.

That said: large, mostly empty environments don't exactly enhance the experience of a narrative-focused rpg with an emphasis on plot choice and in-depth character interaction. That type of thing is better suited to your Breath of the Wilds and your Hollow Knights, games that preference exploration and challenge, and tend to be minimalist on direction or plot detail.

Yep, and the combat was super fun...especially for mages and dual-wielders.

Thanks to all who are keeping the conversation going. I'll try to make at least a short reply to everyone because there are several good lines here.







     I didn't want to say that out loud myself because it was a theory I had but wasn't sure about. Let me let it loose now. Things like tanks, grind, DPS, etc. have always been there in CRPGs, they've just been hidden under the veneer story and PnP game systems.  Five years after Baldur's Gate 2, Blizzard released World of Warcraft which was a game that had a paradigmatic impact not equaled for over a decade (if then). It used all the basic tropes of the CRPG and just removed much of the veneer exposing the beams, because the fun was more focused on working together with other Gamers instead of fitting into someone else's story. That style is no more or less legitimate than the first, but you can see by the use of terms both outside and in this topic that years of MMOs has changed gamers and CRPGs. What I'd like to probe is if we can reach a different kind of CRPG.: one that keeps the veneers of story but allows more flexibility in how they fit together. DA:I didn't succeed at that so well (for numerous reasons). Are there ways DA4 can not only improve but innovate on that?  









     Let me ask: you would agree that the real issue for improvement is more and more interesting NPCs? That's the gist I got but I don't want to put words in your mouth. Also, thanks for mentioning villians. I think, outside spending lots of zots on NPCs with more static presence, Bioware could invest in recurring, persistent minor villians. The Protag foils their plans and occasionally gets close, but they manage to get away (until they don't ). While I think determining WHAT wasn't working in DA:I than why, given some of the depth of overheard conversations I have picked up in the game, I get the feeling it was more of an organization problem than writer problem. YMMV.







    Hi panda. Good to see you again. Yup, this topic seems to be converging with my Quests topic but I guess I shouldn't be surprised. A question given your experience in that type of game: any way you see to make more of a hybrid? Something that leverages the thrill of discovery in locations as well as the discovery of plot and character? Bioware tried that long ago with Baldur's Gate 1 but that was a bit of a mess as they had so many open areas with little to no content and you had to manually traverse all the intervening terrain.







    I think we'll see more urban adventures, but there are likely some wilderness sections too. The Companions may have to carry some of the weight in non-civilized areas. Maybe specific dialogues (like the cutscenes with Morrigan in the Temple of Mythal) instead of the basic banter, perhaps even linked with pieces of lore specific to the Companion in question? I'm assuming your last sentence is referring to DA:I? I'm not going to try to explain or apologize for Val Royeaux, that was just a plain bad design decision. I'm not sure we will see more 'dungeons' in the traditional sense and I'm not terribly hurt about that. Things like Valamarr and the Deep Roads make sense, but giving the designers more freedom to chain areas together instead of stuffing them into one pathed 'dungeon' sparks some interesting creativity. 
 
quote source="/post/1449284/thread" author="helios969" timestamp="1616486496"]What would be nice in addition to filling up the wide spaces with interesting content would for them to design some good side story content and quest chains that take place post game. I don't think I've ever found a reason to continue playing in the world post-boss fight that didn't require DLC. And please design the game with a game+ in mind. I hate the tedium of collecting crap for crafting and whatnot.[/quote]

     I'm not a Player who is big on long denouement or game+. Would you be able to describe what you consider designing for game+? Is there some way to get that content for those who are not game+ Players (which I have a feeling but no numbers is the far larger majority)? I don't want to be dismissive of any Players but this group is the hard for me to connect to. 


     Thanks again to all.  

I agree with you on the face of it but I also think that is where, at least part of, the solution arrives.  

See another one of the attractions about Dragon Age...or at least Inquisition...was exploring the world and finding out more about the world and mainly its past.  Though this was kind of best done in the critical path missions mainly What Pride Had Wrought and Ameridan's encounter in Hakkon... being a history buff both instances were huge highlights for me.  

But perhaps this is something they can do in the future by giving people rewards of lore in random corners of the world.  These don't have to be that much but they can add significant flavor to the setting and really help flesh it out.  And as a bonus they can do, as you suggest, big cutscenes or story beats in these side quests or exploration.  Like maybe you could participate in an Indiana Jones like adventure looking for an ancient artififact, like in Genitivi dies in the End.  

I think the point panda is driving at in this example is that the cost (in exploration time, especially those really tough ones to reach) for the return is just far too low. Completing one of those paths (let's say the Fire Captured if you are targeting a fire breathing dragon) requires a minimum of 42 shards. Assuming the wiki is correct, a Player has to gather every shard in the Hinterlands (a high bar since you have to get past that wicked Fereldan Frostback for several), every shard in the complex that is the Forbidden Oasis and at least 5 out of the 13 along the Storm Coast. That's all for a selection of loot that, while nice, doesn't come close to compensating the time spent. Further, there's no Lore until you get all 114 shards and that lore just hints at the existence of Fen'harel vaguely. Once you move to Skyhold, you'll have to fight your way through Venatori and a Giant just to cash in a few more shards. As Dorian says, "Seriously, just how many keys does one ancient temple need?"

Moving onto the other part, like Colfoley said, there can be some pretty good ways to include exploration. It just needs to be done with a better eye on the time spent to payoff. That will be somewhat different for different Players, but there's some payoffs DA could have that say Hollow Knights might not. What if the exploration is driven by a Companion so there's character interaction on top of the possible loot and lore dynamic? We had a taste of that in Inquisition with Varric and Valammar, for example. Turn that up some and add more lore to it. If you have a Companion in the party for long enough and build some approval, it triggers and you have a real multi-level reward mechanic going with a reason to go there. Just one way to do it.

Why anyone would bother to do a completionist run of DAI utterly baffles me. That is my overall point. I have also cleared out every shred of DAI's content, and looking back I consider it to have been a waste of my time.

"Do the shards to beat the dragons."

Okay, and what do I get when I beat the Dragons? Purple gear that's on a par with stuff I'm already finding around the place, and nothing meaningful in terms of story.

pessimistpanda For me it's about spending more time in my favorite game of the series.

The hard thing to understand is the people who do completionist runs while complaining that completionist runs aren't fun. I saw a lot of that on the ME:A boards.