Dragon Age - Quest Design @ Iron Tower

Vince Dweller takes a look at the quest design in BioWare's Dragon Age, examining the motivation, integration and solutions. It's a spoiler-y article by nature, so make sure you have finished the game. The intro:

Dragon Age is definitely one of the best, if not the best, Bioware game to-date, and certainly one of the best role-playing games in years. Though the game follows the familiar Bioware structure, they have managed to improve and evolve that design significantly, keeping the strong story-focus they are known for, while loading in a wide range of player choices and paths. While a full review is currently in the works, I'd like to take a moment to discuss the quest design separately, since it is hard to analyze the quests without revealing how they play out. In other words, if you haven’t yet completed the game (but are planning to do so in the near future), stop reading now. For those who have, or are simply interested in analyzing Bioware's design more than playing the game itself, this article is for you.

More information.

I'd love to know what the RPG Watch denizens think about Dragon Age quest design, so do leave your comments or share your thoughts.

I agree very much with the article, definitely one the best rpgs from Bioware after so many years since the days of Baldur's Gate.

The questing structure is obviously much more advance compared to crpgs released in recent years. I liked it and hopefully further improved it and other weak aspects such as more original story.

My main gripe is too much reliance on combat to 'solve' quests. I enjoy finding alternatives as much as possible!!

Definitely not Bioware's "best" game imo, but I think the quest design is quite excellent.

Which game is the best and why then?

It certainly has its moments, mainly when they are staying away from the straight light/dark choices, but those moments aren't that frequent in the game. The Mage Tower and Redcliffe (and associated quests) are some of its best moments, basically, the 'dealing with demons' seem to come up with the most interesting scenarios. The Sword & Sorcery and Political aspects are better than the Tolkien-esque, but I guess the Tolkien and Campbell cliques are what everyone expects from a big Bioware game.

People are still going to like BG2 more for the variety of enemy, sheer mass of content, six character strategy (possibly with your own characters and not set ones), unique items and the D&D rules. 3d still brings camera problems for crpgs as well. Those aspects aren't going to be beaten by a few better quests.

Dragon Age's design ethos is for a smoother, less management, more time in combat and dialogue than previous games. It's very much like a single-player MMO which the designers have obviously taken some inspiration from. Likely why Bioware were courting mmorpg.com and the like. Take that as you will and a game a big as Dragon Age is likely not to have everything to ones personal taste. The point being that just because one aspect might be better in places than another game it can fall short in others that make the whole a lesser experience.

Originally Posted by Corwin
My main gripe is too much reliance on combat to 'solve' quests.

Same with BG ? Did they just copy that ?

Originally Posted by Alrik Fassbauer
Same with BG ? Did they just copy that ?

I don't think Corwin said that wasn't a problem with BG.

Originally Posted by VDweller
Which game is the best and why then?

See the post right below yours.

I haven't finished the game, so I didn't read the full article, so I can't comment on the details. It's definitely the best BioWare game since BG2, though I'm not as wedded to BG2 as many others.

If it's true that I've seen some of the best areas and have some not-so-good ones to go, my opinion will drop - but it's still among the best in the last five years or so. There's not enough balance between combat and non-combat areas (town etc locations are small and usually a prelude to a long combat run) and whilst I didn't try some of the alternative solutions suggested, some are a little esoteric, which suggests they could have tried harder for different quest solutions.

Originally Posted by woges
It's very much like a single-player MMO which the designers have obviously taken some inspiration from. Likely why Bioware were courting mmorpg.com and the like.

I don't understand the MMORPG comparison. The timer-based combat is common in MMORPGs but not exactly unseen elsewhere. Otherwise, the experience is completely different. MMO players run up to a quest giver, click straight through to the quest, and run off to farm the 10x rat tails. I don't see much similarity to this story-driven party-based gameplay.

The 'phasing' technique seen in Blizzard's Wrath of the Lich King is somewhat similar in that your quests can effect and open/change areas in the game. You don't get the multiple outcomes but Dragon Age is like playing a group instance in WoW all on your lonesome. WoW does certainly 'borrow' elements from D&D anyway so it's not totally avoidable.

On MMORPG's article:

""Dragon Age has strengths where World of Warcraft has weaknesses," noted Executive Producer Mark Darrah, and "World of Warcraft has strengths where Dragon Age has weaknesses.""

"There are six distinct origin stories and each lasts for a few hours of gameplay. This is not unlike an MMO, such as Lord of the Rings Online, where the different races get their own unique start before being pumped out into the general game world."

"It was a great change of pace to check out a game that isn't an MMO, but still has many lessons it could teach the genre and has clearly learned a thing or two from it. Does this game belong on our game list? Of course not, but it was one of those rare times when we had a chance to see something that, while not at all an MMO, should be of great interest to a huge number of our readers."

Originally Posted by VDweller
Which game is the best and why then?

I consider BG2 and DA:O to be Bioware´s best games by quite a large margin
so here are some personal, kinda spotty, comparisons.

Better in BG2
-itemization
-spellcasting system
-monster diversity (bigger variety of traits)
-environmental diversity (admittedly, Alkathla plays major role here)
-side quests
-music, ambient sounds (they really add a lot to BG2´s atmosphere)
-encounter design (grind factor is on similar level in both, BG2´s encounters are more varied)

Better in DA:O
-main quest and generally quest design
-NPCs
-world reactivity
-nonspellcasting system (playing a rogue in DA:O is more fun than playing most of BG2´s classes together)
-roleplaying opportunities
-writing
-journal (maybe a bit unfair, but the codex is simply too awesome not to be mentioned)

More-or-less on the same level
-interiors
-scope of the world - BG2 has more breadth, DA:O more depth
-party joinables - again, BG2 has more breadth, DA:O more depth
-interface, view/camera
-replayability

Both games offer very complete computer RPG experience without having any major flaws.

I can say for sure, that if I compare my first playthroughs of both games, I got bigger entertainment value from Dragon Age and right now I consider it overall to be a slightly better game in accordance to my preferences.

The main reason being, DA:O is simply much more interesting in the roleplaying department.
Origins do a great job at adding a different perspective to pc right at the start and even later in the game and thanks to the elaborated quest design there´s C&C galore.
Granted, consequences are rarely drastic in the end but they go a long way at making the world feel dynamic and player involved nevertheless.
Player´s choices are rarely of the traditional good/evil variety, as are DA:O´s main characters.
I also rather appreciate the fact that the true main villain is basically the whole situation itself and the game is more about various characters trying to deal with crisis and the player trying to shift them in one way or the other.
The epilogue vignettes are nice touch too.

As for the article, obviously I agree with it and the whole Urn saga is a great example.
To add another example, the whole endgame Denerim intrigue before and including Landsmeet is also pretty much brilliant. I´d definitely like to see more similarly elaborated sequences like the somewhat optional prison scenario which is a part of it.

It´s only pity that the encounter design sometimes too markedly clashes with the quest design. I really like DA:O´s combat mechanics so I usually don´t mind that, but the amount of encounters is definitely overkill in some areas (Haven temple and Carta hideout particularly).

In regards to side quests, with such an expansive main quest I don´t really think game needs ones of BG2´s scope. DA:O´s numerous simple side quests do imo quite sufficient job at making the world feel more dynamic and lively, plus making some dungeon areas more interesting (Brecilian forest/elven ruins is a good example of this).

Anyway, good job with the article!

Originally Posted by DeepO
The main reason being, DA:O is simply much more interesting in the roleplaying department.

Not my opinion.

While I think DA is a really good game, I had to literally force myself through some of the areas, and I even took days off at a time where I just didn't feel like playing it. I never had to do that in BG 1 or 2, in fact, even during repeat playthroughs, my eagerness to keep playing never subsided with those games. On the other hand, I doubt I will even play DA again, at least not for a long time.

I liked Redcliffe

- It felt alive and like a realistic location
- I remembered and cared about the minor characters you meet like Perth, Teagan and the guys you recruit
- There is a sense of mystery of what happened in the castle and what you will find there
- Combat is not endless. You might meet an npc or have to make a decision rather than a long stretch of combat
- I liked the area transitions, you are not stuck in one location too long. Just even going from castle interior to courtyard makes a difference.
- There is satisfaction in returning and seeing the location cleaned up and functioning after you resolve the quest
- I felt different emotions during the level. Like preparing for the siege and then relief when it was over. And then the mystery of sneaking into the castle unsure of what would there. And then the decisions you make.


Though what I liked about BG2 was you had a big city which felt alive with a lot of things going on. And the locations felt more linked. You could travel around and pick up new quests. There seemed to be a lot of smaller quests.

I viewed each location in DA:O as big separate chunks which I completed in one go. The locations did not feel as linked.

Also I would have liked more sidequests to open up once you have resolved a location. So there is an incentive to return. You don't just complete a location and forget about it.

I really like the overall quest design, but a few quests give me something of an MMO feeling - the ones you get from the Irregulars, the Mages, the Chantry and the Thieves. Can't say I enjoy such quests.

All in all, I'd still rate the whole BG series (esp. with EasyTutu on top of BG1) as a better overall experience. That still makes DA:O the best party based RPG in recent years.

Originally Posted by VDweller
I'd love to know what the RPG Watch denizens think about Dragon Age quest design, so do leave your comments or share your thoughts.

One minor example I've only played very recently (and indeed am still unsure of how to go) was



Too minor a quest to be a particularly great example from a quest design perspective I guess, but still very pleased to faced with a choice between role playing & power gaming.

Overall the major quest arcs I think are done very well too, they probaby all collapse back to basically the same situation but it's felt like there's been a real choice about how to handle things, and the illusion of choice is plenty IMO.