Oblivion: PC Gamer Praises in Preview

[Diogo Ribeiro]

Di is an example of someone who dislikes a certain feature and has a legitimate reason for it,

 

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.

 

but all you've done is offer up the typical boogeyman that people like to use as a scapegoat, typically called the "casual gamer".

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

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.

[Diogo Ribeiro]

snip

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

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.

[Hell Kitty]

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.

 

This is one hundred percent true. The problem I have is the apparent assumption that the reason we don't see such things in games, or see discussions of such things very often is due to people preferring silly things like pretty graphics or NPC romances or big boobed player models or whatever the hell else.

 

It's the same old crap "The reason we don't see more of X (with X being "something I like") is because people prefer Y (with Y being "something I don't like"). People will use the same old casual gamer boogeyman because it's an easy scapegoat that doesn't exist to defend itself.

 

I remember being blasted on a forum once simply for having the nerve to post a Far Cry screenshot and say I thought it was pretty, with the claim being that saying the graphics were pretty meant I obviously favoured graphics over gameplay. It's this attitude that leads to the kind of comments like yours. Just because the only thing a person might post on a message board is that they want NPC romances, doesn't mean that given the choice they would choice a crap game with romances over a great game without. Proof that such people exist is exactly what this is about, but apparently we are just supposed to take your word for it.

Edited January 23, 2006 by Hell Kitty

[Hell Kitty]

Well, if all quests have 'all the time in the world' to complete, it kind of breaks their plausibility. 'Will you save my cat?' 'Okay. Wait, see you in 3 months, SUCKER!' Having a quest fail because you had to prioritize other issues (and thus have appropriate consequences occur 'My cat died, you dastard!!!' 'Awesome, I was just hungry now'). This is all part of making choices, having to make decisions about what's more important and thus giving them priority. Being able to do everything is more akin to being able to joining every faction in Oblivion (I wanna do EVERYTHING!!! ROFLTUNASANDWICH!!!!), then it becomes an issue of the player wanting to have everything completely available instead of the stuff being available making sense in the game world.

 

Heck, if you just have a tendency to leave the game running while you go potty breaking, then don't have the game timer run off of real-time. Have it so that each action you perform in-game (exploring a new area, performing a mission, resting) consists of a certain amount of time in-game, rather than clock it minute-by-minute. The race against the clock becomes much more about your PC vs prioritization, rather than the player vs real-time. PC vs player.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

When I was playing Half-Life 2, in the levels where you drive along the cliffs in the buggy, I had my vehicle flipped over the cliff by those ball things that come out of the ground, and this resulted in an automatic failure, because according to the story I had to get to my destination quickly, and walking would never get my there on time, and the bad guys would do whatever it is I'm rushing to stop them from doing.

 

In reality, you can take as long as you feel like. Would HL2 be a better game if you really did need to hurry? Like I said earlier, it would suck to fail at the last moment because the invisible timer beat me. You could show the player the timer, but then you'd be adding an unrealistic feature to counter a realistic one.

 

I remember an argument over at the Dark Mod (Thief-like mod for Doom 3) forums, concerning being able to save anywhere version limited saves or saving only in set locations. The save anywhere crowd argued that in a game like Thief, in which it's common to spend an hour or more on a single mission, limiting the ability to save would just lead to players taking less risks for fear of wiping out an hours worth of gaming, and then give up out of frustration.

 

I think the reason developers don't go for time limits isn't due to nonsense like "people want pretty graphics", rather it's due to not wanting frustration to overrule the fun.

[Slowtrain]

Games should not have timers for victory. Small time limits within the overall context of the game is fine, but its a FREAKING GAME. It is not the real world. People play games at their own rate and their own speed. I tend to play very slowly, usually doubling or triplinng the average "estimated" playthrough time. If I am forced to rush, I'm not going to enjoy the game. And it doesn't make it anymore "realsitc" or "alive" either. Its just makes it rushed.

 

If you really want to make a game alive, reduce the stupid scirpted sequences and cutscenes and ridiculos dialouge and make a game world that is more like a dynamic campaign on a flight sim. Random people going about their business with whom you may or may not interact.

[Diogo Ribeiro]

The problem I have is the apparent assumption that the reason we don't see such things in games, or see discussions of such things very often is due to people preferring silly things like pretty graphics or NPC romances or big boobed player models or whatever the hell else.

 

You should attribute that apparent assumption exclusively to your misconception of what I said.

 

I remember being blasted on a forum once simply for having the nerve to post a Far Cry screenshot and say I thought it was pretty, with the claim being that saying the graphics were pretty meant I obviously favoured graphics over gameplay. It's this attitude that leads to the kind of comments like yours.

 

Hardly comparable. My comment was not made with the intention or clear indication of assuming someone

[Hell Kitty]

Apparently it doesn

[Diogo Ribeiro]

Games should not have timers for victory.  Small time limits within the overall context of the game is fine, but its a FREAKING GAME.  It is not the real world.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

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).

[Slowtrain]

Speakign of awesome game features that woould make the gameworld feel more alive and vibrant, I think all pcs and npcs should be forced to move their bowels at least once a day. Imagine the awesomely realistic party issues of that. w00t! And if you fail to clean up properly afterwards, wham, chr penalty.

 

awesome. totally.

 

more realizm plz.

[Slowtrain]

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?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

umm because of the oft used argument that having a world without time limits makes the world feel less real and therefore less immersive.

 

 

Frankly, BG2 was not less immersive because I could take my own sweet time before finding Imoen. Otoh, It WAS less immersive because it forced me to recuse a charcter I hated. GO LINEAR STORY LINE GO!!!!

 

immersive, yeah. that's a cool meaningless word.

[Diogo Ribeiro]

umm because of the oft used argument that having a world without time limits makes the world feel less real and therefore less immersive.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

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.

[Diogo Ribeiro]

What's ridiculous is your guess that people find lightsaber colours or sex with NPCs more immersive than "credible behaviour" from enemies.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

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.

[Hell Kitty]

Immersion is in the eye of the

 

 

I'd prefer developers focus on creating an entertaining gameplay experience. They should include timers because they make for fun gameplay, like in Fahrenheit, not because of the idea that timers may or may not be "immersive".

[Diogo Ribeiro]

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.

[Hell Kitty]

My 4 year old nephew recently had a birthday, and he stated that he'd be quite happy if everyone just gave him some money, about $20 each. Would he have preferred to ask for $200 each? You betcha, but he knows what an unrealistic thing that is.

 

Would I like a game in which every decision I made would alter the story

 

People ask for fluff because the chances of the devs adding in things like a few extra lightsaber colours are much more likely than, say, being able to explore a realistically modelled planet Earth complete with billions on NPCs to interact with.

 

You want quest timers in games, fine, but you're going to have to do much more than claim they make for an immerive game, which is as useless as claiming it'll make for a more fun game.

 

Before jumping on the casual gamer boogeyman, people should stop and think about the fact that perhaps devs do think about things like quest timers and whatever else. Perhaps the reason we don't see things like is because devs have thought about it and decided that it wouldn't be a good thing, that it wouldn't add anything to their game to enhance it, that it's not worth the trouble, that it's not technologically feasible.

 

If devs included features based on how many people asked for them, then Deus Ex: Invisible War would have included huge levels and a branching storyline, and Thief: Deadly Shadows would have featured huge bodies of water and rope arrows.

[~Di]

In some cases having timed quests makes sense.  It makes no sense to me that the bad guys would just wait around for the protagonist to finally show up to face them.  The bad guys are on a timetable.  They have their own goals.  They have their own needs.  They are going to act regardless if your characters are there or not to stop them.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I agree, and find the game world to be more interesting if it seems more alive.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

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.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Yes, of course. If a player dislikes the pressure of a timeclock and prefers a more leisurely exploration of gameplay, then obviously that means said player wants a pretty light sabre and cyber sex.

 

How silly of me not to have noticed.

[LoneWolf16]

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.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'd think that it would be obvious how an overall time limit is tied to the real world. If I wait a week to do something, that week is gone forever...and we all eventually die. Time is, for some odd reason, a crucial factor in life.

 

I'm with CrashGirl. Why would I want my gaming experience, a time when I'm supposed to be escaping the constraints of reality, to be "bogged" down in it? Ease up on the realism (And yes, what you're asking for with more widely used timers is, in a way, advocating realism.) and add more entertainment value.

Edited January 23, 2006 by LoneWolf16

[~Di]

Does Di dislike quest timers because she has prefers pretty graphics or NPC romances? Hardly, like she said, she wants to be able to enjoy the game at her own pace, with I think is a pretty damn reasonable request, and probably the reason developers don't include more quest timers.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Exactly!

 

Role Player, it seemed obvious to me (since you replied to support posts that directly referenced my own post) that you were implying that anyone who didn't like quest timers or other features you personally found immersive were obviously graphic whores who just wanted to have sex with NPCs. Obviously I'm not the only one who thought so.

 

It's okay to disagree and state why you prefer your own playing style, but it's really not necessary to make snide remarks that encompass everyone who doesn't march to your particular drummer.

 

I was insulted and annoyed by your response. Since you later denied you were referring to me personally, I'll drop it. Broad, sweeping generalizations, particularly insulting ones, will usually annoy someone, FWIW!

[Diogo Ribeiro]

People ask for fluff because the chances of the devs adding in things like a few extra lightsaber colours are much more likely than, say, being able to explore a realistically modelled planet Earth complete with billions on NPCs to interact with.

 

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.

 

You want quest timers in games, fine, but you're going to have to do much more than claim they make for an immerive game, which is as useless as claiming it'll make for a more fun game.

 

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.

 

Before jumping on the casual gamer boogeyman, people should stop and think about the fact that perhaps devs do think about things like quest timers and whatever else. Perhaps the reason we don't see things like is because devs have thought about it and decided that it wouldn't be a good thing, that it wouldn't add anything to their game to enhance it, that it's not worth the trouble, that it's not technologically feasible.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

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.

[LoneWolf16]

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.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Quick question: Do you want development cycles to last, at the shortest, five or six years? Be realistic. Creating a massive, thriving world filled with billions of NPCs takes time. Time and capital. Unless you're all right with waiting half a decade and spending over $100 per game, then I'd suggest a more rational line of thought.

 

I know it's not what you were suggesting, but it's an extreme which deserves an extreme to counter it.

Edited January 23, 2006 by LoneWolf16

[Diogo Ribeiro]

Yes, of course.  If a player dislikes the pressure of a timeclock and prefers a more leisurely exploration of gameplay, then obviously that means said player wants a pretty light sabre and cyber sex. 

 

How silly of me not to have noticed.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

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

Edited January 23, 2006 by Role-Player

[Diogo Ribeiro]

I'd think that it would be obvious how an overall time limit is tied to the real world. If I wait a week to do something, that week is gone forever...and we all eventually die. Time is, for some odd reason, a crucial factor in life. 

 

I'm with CrashGirl.

 

True, you

Edited January 23, 2006 by Role-Player

[LoneWolf16]

I'd think that it would be obvious how an overall time limit is tied to the real world. If I wait a week to do something, that week is gone forever...and we all eventually die. Time is, for some odd reason, a crucial factor in life. 

 

I'm with CrashGirl.

 

True, you

Edited January 23, 2006 by LoneWolf16

[Diogo Ribeiro]

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:

wouldn't it be interesting to give players the chance, even if small, to save Saradush from utter destruction instead of being unable to save it? Failure, as well as success, would likely provide different character reactions. Does he manage to shrug off the deaths of a few because he saved everyone else; or does he wallow in self-pity for having arrived a few moments too late?

 

 

These are the kinds of situations where I think timed events can really make a good impact.

Edited January 23, 2006 by Role-Player

[Gromnir]

observation:

 

we recently watched as a woman friend of ours played kotor2, a realtively linear and simple game. having never really played video games of any kind previously she were unfamiliar with many conventions of such games. kotor2 became frustrating for her at a number of points... simply 'cause she were thinking like a real and rational person as 'posed to thinking like a gamer.

 

*shrug*

 

a handful of timed quests that is tangential and optional is fine with Gromnir, but we thinks that gamers forget just how frustrating these games can sometimes be for normal folks who has not been perverted by game logic.

 

HA! Good Fun!