Diogo Ribeiro

Pretty much, yes. For a brief exposition of some examples that would be based on that mindset, you can see this post.

As alanschu pointed out, I was talking to someone else. Also, there wasn't a problem with just quoting that part per se as I don't really expect people to comment everything I write; if there was a problem, it stemed from your misinterpretation of my point, taking it as a suggestion for realism in games when it was far from it. I disagree, because my point has remained the same ever since I started posting on the subject of time limits in this thread. Unless you care to point me to where exactly I have supposedly been fudging my statements so I can be clearer.

It's not uncommon to be playing a game and suddenly stumbling upon something you feel just begs the question "What were they thinking?". It may be a small quirk of the game, to a severe handicap, to something that just doesn't sit well or flat out contradicts the setting, story or established elements of the game. Basically, something you feel is just weird, obnoxious, questionable, or just plain bad design from the game's creators. Case in point, Exhibit A: Castlevania: Harmony of Dissonance for Gameboy Advance. Troughout the course of the game, Juste Belmont will come across various collectibles which are decorative in nature. When reaching a certain room in the castle, Juste will comment on how the room lacks in taste... And decide to decorate it with the afforementioned items. So, what

The timer could have just halted when the party reached the stronghold. Your suggestion of variations depending on the directions also seems pretty sound.

DREAMY STUD OR STEAMY DUD? YOU DECIDE!

That's a pretty good point. Admitedly, I am focusing on timed events on a standalone basis; in other words, for the most part I'm not deeply judging and analyzing it in the context of how it can be reconciled with the quirks of mainstream videogame development and casual gamer focus. That'd be a fine point of discussion, I guess, how can certain niche or hardcore gameplay mechanisms find their way into mainstream CRPGs.

I didn't insult you, LoneWolf16. I believe I have suggested a certain aggitation, but then again it's not always easy to deal with a fair number of people lunging at you from all sides because they misunderstood something I said... Repeated times. So, apologies for the perceived hostility. As for the impact of timed events, I wasn't suggesting that they'd significantly impact gameplay to the point of outstaying their welcome. One very simple example of having no time limit to reach the endgame - but still taking into account the time a player takes - stems from Planescape: Torment. If you spend a long time levelling up the Nameless One, the Transcendant One will be more powerful. This is more of a power level example than actual time, but still it reflect the time the player spends levelling the character. Another (more drastic) example is Fallout, and how some cities will suffer with the Mutant invasion the more time you take to destroy the Master's plans. The game wasn't that long into production, and it showcases, even if admitedly a small fraction, of how timed events can significantly alter a gameplay experience while still providing ample opportunity to explore a considerable part of the gameworld and roleplay your character. This was also visible in one of Jeff Vogel's games, although I can't remember if it was a Geneforge or Avernum title. My prime suggestion is that timed events can add another level of credibility to the main personalities and locations of a game. It is entirely understandable that some players may not like X or Y game features in their games. All I've said is that I find having major events depend on player quickness can be a good idea. If a player takes too long and cities start getting destroyed as a result of the villian's unchecked acquisition of power, this presents different levels of roleplaying possibilities. A character is faced with choices with meaningful consequences: does he try to defeat the main villain even if he is relatively weak in order to try and save millions? Does he willingly sacrifice a few hundreds so he can become stronger in order to vanquish the villain? Maybe the player can prevent the destruction of the continent's capital city by reaching it the moment an invasion is starting. Take Throne of Bhall, for instance: These are the kinds of situations where I think timed events can really make a good impact.

I got it immediately and I never watched Rocky and Bullwinkle. I had heard of it before so that may be why.

I was 'playing' a Level 42 Enchanted Motorcycle Bastard Lunatic, but eventually running the executable was as pointless as the 'game' itself.

True, you

Actually, it was silly of you to follow in Hell Kitty

They ask for fluff because they know that's what they'll get. If they keep asking for fluff, that's what they'll keep getting. If they want something else but still keep asking for fluff, then the chances of seeing such a realistically modelled planet Earth (even if such an example is a blatant exageration of the type of feature I was discussing) will be constantly grim. Except the suggestion offered wasn't made 'just because', there was reasoning put into it. Perhaps you think it could be more elaborate? That's a valid point of view, but say that instead of suggesting that all I did was claim for something without explaining why, when the reason was there. Perhaps the reason they do what they do is because they believe much more in the 'casual gamer boogeyman' than you would care to acknowledge.

I think everyone already is that guy, but some just don't want to admit it or remember others very often of the fact.

And who's to say entertaining gameplay, fun and immersion are mutually exclusive? It's pretty obvious people have different ideas of what immersion is when applied to works of fiction, be they passive or interactive; but trying to exclude the concept of immersion from a videogame because it's in the eye of the beholder while favoring fun is almost contradictory because both of them depend on the same standard of personal evaluation.

If you don't think the amount of times those features get suggested in comparison to the amount of times the feature being talked about doesn't get suggested is any tangible evidence, then I suppose that's your right to think so; but certainly not mine.

Given I don't advocate realism I'm pretty sure that it is simply a matter of my point flying over people's heads. In fact, if you go back to what I wrote in this thread and try to point out all the instances where I suggest realism you'll come up empty handed. Instead, I'll save you the trouble right now and tell you what I actually *did* suggest: more credibility and immersion, none of which are necessarily tied to realism.

And why is an overall time limit necessarily tied to the real world? Why would such a suggestion even be based on the real world, for that matter? Unless by that statement of your you mean to suggest that any element found in a videogame that has a basis of comparison with something in the real world should not be used? If you look into it, that's more crippling to a videogame than it is to the inclusion of overaching timers. There is a clear difference between trying to imitate all the rules of the real world and transposing them into a videogame (thus potentially making it more realistic), and simply adding elements which may (or may not) have a basis of comparison to real world analogues but are not necessarily based on it (thus potentially making it more credible).

You should attribute that apparent assumption exclusively to your misconception of what I said. Hardly comparable. My comment was not made with the intention or clear indication of assuming someone

Sure, there are varying degrees of just how much this can be achieved. While I'm not sure having most or all quests depend on a timer would break their plausability (though it would certainly aggravate most players), I am more partial to having more signficant events requiring the players' attention which was what I suggested previously. Sometimes the static nature of some in-game situations so all players can adapt to them - instead of having players adapt to what happens in the gameworld - doesn't really feel that satisfying.

Of course, but that was so obvious that it barely required exposition. Again, her particular position wasn't the issue, and it wasn't one to begin with. That I was expressing my enjoyment of the feature when she was expressing her dislike does not mean I was addressing her position which, as you say, is completely valid. If I was refering to her personal position, I would have taken the time to actually address her instead of making indirect posts. My post was more of a reflection of how that feature in particular rarely gets any attention from both developers and gamers alike. It barely gets mentioned in discussions pertaining to possible ways to achive better immersion and/or credibility of a gameworld, and its inclusion in games is scarce. If you're expecting a list of forum users who have expressed their dislike for that feature, you're going to be sorely disappointed because that is not what this is about. I suggest looking elsewhere for your boogeyman.

Perhaps, but by creating the sense that some of the key protagonists' actions as well of some of the major events in the gameworld are not frozen in time until you trigger something, it can lead to the creation of a certain dynamic that feels the gameworld is living and therefore reacting accordingly to what happens in it. I didn't say or suggest Di disliked timers because of the reasons you pointed. My post wasn't aimed at her, so I'd appreciate if you didn't suggest it was.

Pretty disheartening that more people don't feel the same way, really. For all the talk of immersion that's one of the things that strangely flies below people's radar. I guess credible behaviours from the big foozles just isn't as immersive as 256+ colors for my lightsber or party NPCs wanting to bang my PC after having known him/her/it only two hours ago.

I've been waiting to play anything Rifts-related for quite some time on the computer, after having heard a few things about the PnP system. Then they go out and make it an N-Gage game. Waste of development time...

From experience, Temple of Elemental Evil was much buggier than Bloodlines. And while I can't speak for others, I have seen more complaints aimed at the former than the later... And wasn't the buglist for ToEE ginnormous compared to that of Bloodlines?

No, I didn't enjoy Morrowind just the way it was, although I'm not going into lenghts to discuss that. Suffice to say, I think that aging would have made Morrowind more replayable (and in a way more enjoyable) because it would instead encourage them to actually replay it and try different character builds and try achieving other things, instead of being able to be and do nearly everything in one playtrough. This would be particularly noticeable in character builds. If you notice, any character uniqueness the PCs might have had in the beginning is lost in the later stages as nothing prevents players from working on all skills. By the end of the game, most characters will feel the same. A time limit in this case would promote a diversity of character builds and (re)playing experience.