[Some thoughts on urgency, consequences and parallel non-linear missions]

Can you give me an example of, say, how timing the "retrieve the bronse sphere" quest would benefit PS:T. Or how the "Solve the Foundry Murder" quest would benefit from being timed?

They wouldn't. The execution you used as an example earlier, however, I think would have benefited from either timing or just if it noticed that you'd turned around and walked away. After all, you can't tell me that walking away from an execution isn't a clear choice regarding what you want to do about the execution.

 

 

If we're gonna argue that the only way to fail a timed quest is to miss by 3 in-game months or some other massive number, and that by 'timed" we mean "you have a couple of game weeks to finish them", then the entire notion of such quests being timed is pointless, as there's no Urgency in a quest that gives you 2 weeks to complete, and no real importance to slapping a timer on any quest that allows for such forgiving leaway.

Do I need to drag out my Thieves' Guild example again? The urgency is that there actually is going to be something bad if you blow off the quest. It doesn't need to come from a timer on the top right telling you you only have ten minutes to save the princess, as long as the princess isn't still in the same situation after you do everything else the game has to offer.

[Some thoughts on urgency, consequences and parallel non-linear missions]

I think I made a rather good one on the last thread. Planescape Torment didn't have them, therefore they're not needed for a masterpiece.

Planescape Torment also tended not to tell you that your quest needed to be done yesterday or the village would be destroyed. A lack of narrative urgency naturally leads to a lack of mechanical urgency.

 

2. The original games were NOT flawed for failing to have timed quests.

I disagree with this. When my stronghold was being attacked in BG2, the level of urgency to be found in the game (none) was very different from the amount I was told about (lots). I considered that a flaw at the time and continue to do so. If they didn't need me to come immediately they shouldn't have told me to.

Time management and moral choices can go hand in hand, they aren't mutually exclusive.

They are, however, unrelated.

You think that someone seeing a woman being carried off by a gang of orcs and deciding to open up a savings account at the local bank is unrelated to that person's morality? Just because something has, historically, been unrelated to a game's alignment system does not mean it's unrelated to morality.

[Some thoughts on urgency, consequences and parallel non-linear missions]

No, that's a time management choice. Maybe its your turn to stop splitting hairs.

 

there's a huge difference, from a moral standpoint, between dragging your feet/apathy, and siding with the killers

[Some thoughts on urgency, consequences and parallel non-linear missions]

But whatever, there's a huge difference, from a moral standpoint, between dragging your feet/apathy, and siding with the killers

Exactly. That's why we should be able to make that choice.

[Some thoughts on urgency, consequences and parallel non-linear missions]

Which brings us right back to what we just got done discussing: the redundancy of the timer. Having something different happen if you don't rescue the princess".... can be done without one.

That's a different something different, though. Choosing to side with bandits versus not getting to the bandits before they do their banditry are unlikely to have the same ramifications.

Again, says who?

...Really? Do I need to provide a peer-reviewed psychology text showing that kings treat people who help kill their daughters differently from people who try to help and fail, and both differently from those who just go off and do their own thing?

 

 

So basically the only benefit of a timer is the sense of "urgency" or the illusion that the world moves on without your input, even though that elf maiden actually doesn't get kiddnapped in the first place unless you actually spoke to the king and got the quest, or clicked on the notice board and got the quest, or overheard the town crier and got the quest....

There's also no one telling me that the princess is in need of urgent assistance before I talk to the quest-giver. There's no narrative urgency for the game to support.

Correct. In other words, events are still centered around the player, instead of occuring regardless of the player. So again, what does a timer bring to the equation besides a sense of urgency which decent writing should already cover?

You keep bringing up decent writing as if that should be enough on its own, without any reinforcement from the actual game. That is Not How It Works. Imagine, if you will, that Obsidian had had everyone in the Mojave tell you all about how terrifying and dangerous Deathclaws are. The descriptions were masterfully written, works of art even without context. And then the first time one pops up you discover that they do less damage than a housecat. Would you have been as cautious around them?

 

As opposed to the risk of failure if you do the quest wrong, or aren't careful during a violent rescue attempt.

Not "as opposed to". I don't think anyone here is advocating that tossing a giant AOE spell right next to a hostage shouldn't have negative consequences.

[Some thoughts on urgency, consequences and parallel non-linear missions]

Which brings us right back to what we just got done discussing: the redundancy of the timer. Having something different happen if you don't rescue the princess".... can be done without one.

That's a different something different, though. Choosing to side with bandits versus not getting to the bandits before they do their banditry are unlikely to have the same ramifications.

 

 

So basically the only benefit of a timer is the sense of "urgency" or the illusion that the world moves on without your input, even though that elf maiden actually doesn't get kiddnapped in the first place unless you actually spoke to the king and got the quest, or clicked on the notice board and got the quest, or overheard the town crier and got the quest....

There's also no one telling me that the princess is in need of urgent assistance before I talk to the quest-giver. There's no narrative urgency for the game to support.

[Some thoughts on urgency, consequences and parallel non-linear missions]

The point is it's not hard at all for writers to project a sense of urgency, without resorting to controversial game mechanics like timers.

It's also not hard for writers to project a sense of danger, and yet swords still do damage.

 

And they're only unimaginative if the result of the timer going over is "YOU LOSE THE QUEST". Surely having something different happen if you wait several months to rescue the maiden is more imaginative than having the same set of events always happen?

[Some thoughts on urgency, consequences and parallel non-linear missions]

To your second point, you assume of course, that joining a thieve's guild is mutually exclusive to resquing the princess, when the writers could easily make it NOT mutually exclusive at all, you could join the guild then recieve your very first quest: "Favors to get the king in our pocket ", which sees you....rescuing the princess....

Yes. I'm assuming that. That's usually how it works. Address the point. Change it to the Mages' Guild or Hermits United if you need a guild less likely to send a newbie to do favors for the king.

[Some thoughts on urgency, consequences and parallel non-linear missions]

the main problem is still there. Nothing in this world happens without my input.

And What problem is that? I cited the possibility of failure at every step of the questline, including the very first step, which involves caving to greed, instead of "oops! I overslept and missed my appointment!"

The problem is that, firstly, "caving to greed" isn't failure unless you're in the habit of basing your dialog options on a coin flip, and secondly, I can still go and work my way to the top of a guild and the damsel will still be in exactly as much distress when I arrive as if I'd gone straight to her rescue. If it's reasonable to give you enough time to sleep before doing a quest then the time can be extended accordingly; pressuring you into doing a quest RIGHT THE **** NOW doesn't need to be the end result of every timer.

[Some thoughts on urgency, consequences and parallel non-linear missions]

Since Urgency isn't needed at all for such a quest to play out exactly as you're describing

 

Oh, Is the assassination supposed to fail because the player said "Yes, I'll prevent it" and get there, only to find out they arrived too late anyway?

LOL Ok, Lets walk through this scenario.

 

1)Elven king's princess daughter gets kidnapped.

2)Elven king Hires you to free her. Marks the bandit group's hideout on your map

3)You go to the bandit hideout.

4)Bandit leader approaches you, tries to talk you into allowing them to assassinate her in exchange for [insert incentive/reward here]

5)You now have a choice. Side with the bandits and Allow the Elven princess to be assassinated -or- Side with the King and say NO and wipe out the entire bandit gang.

 

The quest then branches out according to the choice you made in #5.

 

No timer needed.

That can happen if there's enforced urgency, you know. The only difference is that this is also an available option:

(slightly altered because kidnapping someone and then assassinating them is idiotic, and asking permission to kill a captive doubly so)

1)Elven king's princess daughter gets kidnapped.

2)Elven king Hires you to free her. Marks the bandit group's hideout on your map.

3)You run to the capitol because you think working your way to the top of the Thieves' Guild sounds more interesting.

4)You write the next great Argonian novel.

5)You go to the bandit hideout.

6)The bandits sold her to Count McEvil while you were screwing around.

7)You go to Count McEvil's estate

8)Count McEvil approaches you, tries to talk you into allowing them to keep her in exchange for [insert incentive/reward here]

9)You now have a choice. Side with Count McEvil and Allow the Elven princess to work for a living -or- Side with the King and say NO and wipe out the whole estate, freeing the rest of the slaves as a nice side effect.

 

Not feeling very pressured there. I just think it would be nice if the game didn't pretend that you hadn't taken that detour to become faction head. Why should the bandits only ever sell people into slavery when I make an explicit decision to let them?

[Some thoughts on urgency, consequences and parallel non-linear missions]

And deciding not to drop everything to save the kidnapped elven maided in 30 minutes or less is not "ignoring the urgency", It's simply a refusal to play the "beat the clock" minigame.

And thus, she dies. Or maybe she escapes. Or maybe she's sold into slavery. If you character didn't care enough about the elven maiden, there's no reason to care now that something happened.

Or the alternative: You took a few minutes to run to the shop to buy some arrows, and thus missed the stated deadline to save her by a few minutes.

Alternatively, the game isn't so anal about timing that restocking your supplies is enough to put you over, so running to the shop to buy some arrows just makes you more likely to succeed.

 

Besides, there's no reason that the elven maiden being sold into slavery should mean you can no longer save her. You just need to find out who she was sold to. And that quest likely isn't going to be very time-sensitive, since slaves tend to stay in one place.

[Some thoughts on urgency, consequences and parallel non-linear missions]

As it stands, in my first playthrough of MoTB, I *didn't* "wait forever". The moment I had that conversation with Gann (where he's wincing about the spirits tearing up the land), I made my way to the front gate. Because that's all it took.

 

So...why do I prefer *that* type of urgency over the one you keep preaching for? Because in the type I described the decision felt like it was mine to make. it didn't, for example, feel like the devs were forcing me to be their storyline puppet.

But the devs were forcing you to be their storyline puppet. If you want to participate in their storyline, you have to meet Okku at the gate. Dance, puppet. Alternatively, Okku could wait at the gate long enough to make an informed judgement about if you were ever going to show up, and if you decide to ignore him he goes and does his thing, leaving you with a different storyline.

 

The inclusion of timed events where there's a definite "complete it on time, or else fail" does not, in any way, prevent the player from doing everything in one playthrough. Instead, it just prevents him from having a 100% quest success rate.

How about "complete it on time, or you'll be given an updated objective/outcome reflecting the time you're taking to complete it"? Timing doesn't need to mean that the game says "game over, you suck" in big red letters when the time's up.

[Metaphysics and All its Fabulously Gnarly Implications]

Is a moral act moral because a God/Gods said so?

It's probably better to just look at it as legal/illegal rather than moral/immoral. And an endless cycle of reincarnation doesn't leave much room for damnation, so that isn't an issue.

[Update #5 - Souls, Technology, and Adventuring Companies]

You never hear the round that kills you...

And a statue never hears anything.

I suppose all you need is one dickish God feeding a line to his own cult about the Gods being mortal beings who just happen to have a really cool spaceship or a more advanced knowledge of magic or something. Hell, they may very well be?

Whenever you receive a divine revelation, it's always wise to check ReligiFact before incorporating it into your doctrine.

Actually, I'm always interested in Greek mythology and I am a Christian. On the other hand, there's a lot to debate in both examples, but neither one answers the question about atheism in a world with overt Gods. It's truly impossible to say what would happen if humanity were faced with beings who transcended normal physical laws, even if it were simply other humans.

We'd probably get used to it. In many ways modern civilization outclasses the ancient gods, and most of us aren't being driven mad.

In the case of those beings being human, someone would probably get funding to find out how they did that.

[Guns kill mages.... mage hunter class?]

What's even more interesting - I can't wait to build a gun-resistant mage

 

This, it seems like mages won't have armor restrictions. Hopefully the same goes for rogues.

With rogues the armor restrictions make sense, to a degree. You don't go sneaking through the shadows in full plate. That's not saying you shouldn't be allowed to try, but it's unlikely to end well.

[Publishers accused of trying to exploit Kickstarter (Obsidian)]

Curious how it would work if a big publishers tried to use a kickstarter.

 

It would work out relatively well.

 

There's nothing inherently wrong with a Publisher doing a kickstarter. It would permit them to gamble on an edgy idea while minimizing risk and maximizing potential. From a Gamer's perspective, it'd just be a cheap pre-order. The Publisher's could toss out innovative, or "Niche" ideas, and if they fly, their team is paid for and gamers get diversity.

 

The problem is: This assumes Publishers are interested in making great games. Which they're sadly not.

I don't think that good games are all it's limited too. What you're describing is every company owner's wet dream: a focus group that doubles as an investor you'll never have to pay back. Aside from assured franchises of the Call of Madden: Modern Warcraft variety, you'd be an idiot to not try that, assuming people can be convinced to go along with such a system.

[Update #5 - Souls, Technology, and Adventuring Companies]

We'll see who's a tinfoil when your thunder throwing god will turn out to be six squirrels with a robe and a ring of levitation.

 

A cult dedicated to worshiping squirrels is also something I would be interested in seeing, so I win either way.

 

I cannot but feel this view of "amoral" gods are established by other religious schemes especially Christian culture, which even has the tendency of denying part of sexuality. Greeks are more open to naked bodies, for example.

No, it comes from the Greek gods being ****. Starting a war and razing a city because a person in it called you the second fairest is not a particularly moral action.

[Update #5 - Souls, Technology, and Adventuring Companies]

My guess, based solely on it being the first thing that popped into my head, is that the gods aren't saying where souls come from because they don't know either.

 

This is what I was expecting, more or less, after the announcement of firearms in Project Eternity. That said it's interesting to see that the rise of late medieval technology has not given rise to early modern humanism or religious dissent the way it did in our world. You mention later that the printing press hasn't been invented yet, which I'm guessing is the main reason behind this discrepancy, since it's not as easy to spread radical ideas.

Probably a combination of that and a world in which gods are empirically provable and can communicate directly not lending itself well to religious dissent.

 

 

Technology level sounds just right, especially absence of printing press (I really want hear story behind that ).

There doesn't really need to be a story behind the printing press not existing. It's entirely possible that no one's thought of it yet. It's not like the technology required to dip blocks with letter-shaped indentations into ink didn't exist in ancient Rome. Doing so just isn't obvious.

 

Besides, even here gunpowder was invented somewhere between four and six centuries before printing.

 

 

You can still be atheist in a setting where deities exist. Just because someone throw a thunder at you he doesn't have to be an immortal being who governs forces of nature, he can be just a powerful spirit or a group of mages.

I would be very interested in seeing a tinfoil hat atheist.

[Would you like to see undead in Eternity?]

I'd like to, for once, see a graveyard where dead are laying nicely in the coffins.*

 

1:st level "can you clear my cellar of rats, they're pretty big uns around here"

5:th level "oh dear, the local tomb seems to be filled with undead again, could you clear it up thank you".

I've always wondered why people in those kinds of worlds even have graveyards to begin with. I'd like to see a world in which people recognize that zombie infestations are a problem and act accordingly. Cremation isn't that difficult.

[Little, simple things for immersion.]

Turns out it takes more than wiping your hands on your pants to clean off orc blood.