Oblivion: PC Gamer Praises in Preview

[alanschu]

Apparently it doesn

[Diogo Ribeiro]

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.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

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.

[alanschu]

It doesn't necessarily have to be a "time" thing (and if it is, it does have to be smart about it).

 

 

I like the fact that Minsc got pissed off at you in the original BG if you picked him up in the party to go looking for Dynaheir, then never did that. I don't like that he would still get pissed off when the timer ran out right as I entered the Gnoll Stronghold map. The quest probably would have been better served if the timer was ignored the closer you got to the stronghold. Or perhaps if it was abstracted that if you started going in the opposite direction, then he'd get mad.

 

People can bitch and moan about something like this, but to me the solution seems obvious. If you would like Minsc in your party, then you're going to have to do what he is asking of you. It seems absolutely retarded that you can assure him you will look for Dynaheir, and then never do that, and have him still follow you around. If you don't want to be "burdened" with looking for Dynaheir, don't recruit Minsc.

[Diogo Ribeiro]

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

[Hell Kitty]

You can take an analysis over what is stated in design requests by people.

 

There's infinitely more requests for more lightsaber colours.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

"If you could only have one of these two things, which one would you choose?

 

a) More lightsaber colours

b) A more immersive game experience"

 

You think more people would choose a? Of course it doesn't help a is a very specific request and that b is so completely vague that it's worthless... May as well make option b "More fun".

 

 

Even making the options

 

a) More lightsaber colours

b) Time limits

 

gives one specific and one vague request. Just because someone goes to Blockbuster and rents an action movie, doesn't mean they prefer action over drama, and judging them based on the assumption that they do is your failing, not theirs.

 

As I've already said, I don't have a problem with time limits in specific cases, like Fahrenheit, and I think your example of party members getting angry and/or leaving because you aren't doing what they want is a good one. Of course that's a whole different ball game to failure of the entire game due to a time limit, or being forced to end because your character has aged decades of the course of a few days.

Edited January 23, 2006 by Hell Kitty

[alanschu]

gives one specific and one vague request. Just because someone goes to Blockbuster and rents an action movie, doesn't mean they prefer action over drama, and judging them based on the assumption that they do is your failing, not theirs.

 

But if many more people rent action movies over drama movies, a conclusion that action movies are more popular can be made.

 

It's as empirical as we can get. I think it's more presumptuous to assume that people request lightsaber colours because they all understand that creating a more dynamic world is difficult. I understand that there will be exceptions, such as the example you describe with renting a movie. But that's a single instance. I was being more general.

 

Of course that's a whole different ball game to failure of the entire game due to a time limit

 

And I never said that the failure of the game should depend on a timelimt. However, I don't mind it if it is transparent, as is the case in Fallout. Though the game probably shouldn't "end," except for the fact that the game really isn't all that good when it comes to separating you from the Vault people. This covers much more than just the timelimit though. Once the Vault is gone, the game is over.

[Slowtrain]

I

[alanschu]

He wasn't talking to you, in the post that you quoted.

[Slowtrain]

He wasn't talking to you, in the post that you quoted.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

umm right, but he was talking ABOUT me. I was merely explaining why I choose to address only part of his post. Not that I had to, but I felt he had a valid point.

 

edit: Upon rereading I see that you in fact may be right.

 

*falls upon sword*

Edited January 23, 2006 by CrashGirl

[Diogo Ribeiro]

hmm.  sorry there, RP, but I only had a small amount of time to post and didn't want to quote the whole post but only address part of it, so I only quoted what I needed.

 

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.

 

ANyway, after all this I'm still not sure what your point about time limits is. You seem to keep fudging your statements.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

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.

[Plano Skywalker]

funny thing is, Morrowind actually logs in-game time even though it incorporates no opportunity costs relating to time.

[Slowtrain]

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.

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Was this your original point? As far as the subsection of the thread goes?

[alanschu]

funny thing is, Morrowind actually logs in-game time even though it incorporates no opportunity costs relating to time.

Many games do that.

Edited January 23, 2006 by alanschu

[Diogo Ribeiro]

Was this your original point?  As far as the subsection of the thread goes?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

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

[Slowtrain]

All I've said is that I find having major events depend on player quickness can be a good idea.

 

IS this the main point you are trying to get across then?

[Diogo Ribeiro]

I'd hazard the quote in your previous post was more adequate, though; not that that wouldn't work, although it feels too narrow in scope.

Edited January 23, 2006 by Role-Player

[LoneWolf16]

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.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Sorry again, just got the distinct feeling I was being insulted. In a nice subtle way, which I like, but hell, I was wrong. Wouldn't be the first time, or the last.

 

As for the games described, like I said, some timers work well with the game, others don't. All of those given, in their own way, are great examples of how timers in games should be implemented. After all, that's the main problem; implementation.

 

Now, as Kitty's said, a timer for the entire game that runs out causing you to instantly lose, no ifs, ands, or buts, is...problematic. Then again, it also depends a great deal on whether such a timer works in the context of the game itself, like in Fallout.

 

Seems like a balancing of the different parts of the whole is needed to make that certain mechanic enjoyable for the player. I'd assume most devs don't want to risk losing a larger profit due to an error in judgement of that magnitude...since something as simple as a timer can disrupt the flow of the game, or wreck it entirely depending, again, on its implementation.

 

I'm rambling, so I'll shut up now.

[Slowtrain]

I'd hazard the quote in your previous post was more adequate, though; not that that wouldn't work, although it feels too narrow in scope.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

OK. So really your point has nothing to do with time limits really, but more just a world that moves onward wether the pc is around or not?

[Plano Skywalker]

the marketplace will ultimately decide which solution is better for the open-ended problem.

 

if I am not mistaken, Fable (which has an all-encompassing timer) sold rather well.

[Diogo Ribeiro]

OK.  So really your point has nothing to do with time limits really, but more just a world that moves onward wether the pc is around or not?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

My point had to do, in a way, with both. Eventually it branched off at some point and I focused solely on the timed events, or universal timer. It's safe to say that it was mainly about the concept of time itself split into certain aspects, one of them being an overaching timer, another being story specific timers.

[Slowtrain]

My point had to do, in a way, with both. Eventually it branched off at some point and I focused solely on the timed events, or universal timer. It's safe to say that it was mainly about the concept of time itself split into certain aspects, one of them being an overaching timer, another being story specific timers.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

And you think timers, both general and specific, are a good thing because they add to the immersiveness of a game? makew it more real as in a "real world" sense? fair to say?

[Diogo Ribeiro]

Now, as Kitty's said, a timer for the entire game that runs out causing you to instantly lose, no ifs, ands, or buts, is...problematic. Then again, it also depends a great deal on whether such a timer works in the context of the game itself, like in Fallout.

 

As you say so, it depends on implementation. But one poorly designed and implemented timer should not be held as entirely representative of all possible implementations of timers. One bad example is not a rule.

 

As for the mechanic itself, there should be some measure of feedback given to players.

 

I'm rambling, so I'll shut up now. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Don't. We need more ramblings here. If for no better reason than to just challenge some people's obviously insecure egos.

[alanschu]

And you think timers, both general and specific, are a good thing because they add to the immersiveness of a game?  makew it more real as in a "real world" sense?  fair to say?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

The make the gameworld more interesting as the significance of your decisions increases. If doing one quest means you can't do a different quest, then it's possible that game parts play out differently because of your decision.

 

Imagine you go into a burning house, you can go into the left room and save someone, or go into the right room and get an item (or whatever..could be a different person to save).

 

If you save the person, you get a friend, and perhaps ally/party member. But you can never get the item. You get the item, which could be quite powerful, but the person dies.

 

Perhaps this person you save can help you out later on. Or even better, end up making your life a bit more miserable by working against you.

[Diogo Ribeiro]

And you think timers, both general and specific, are a good thing because they add to the immersiveness of a game?

 

It can add to the credibility and consistency of some situations, and by association, it can add to immersion, as well as introduce other venues for roleplaying. So, yes.

 

makew it more real as in a "real world" sense?  fair to say?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

No, because as I've told you before (but incredibly it always got lost in translation), trying to make it feel 'more real' isn't the issue or intention. Consistency within the gameworld and credibility of its mechanics are what's at stake, and these are not associated with realism. They may be, depending on the context of the game; but it aren't in the case of this suggestion.

 

So, to finalize your attempt to divine my meaning, it should simply read: "I think timers, both general and specific, can be a good thing to implement as they can potentially add to the immersivenes of a game."

[Slowtrain]

As you say so, it depends on implementation. But one poorly designed and implemented timer should not be held as entirely representative of all possible implementations of timers. One bad example is not a rule.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

OK. You also qualified your thoughts by saying this. I'm not entirely sure which bad example you were actually referring to or it it was merely hypothetical.

 

But my concern with the implementation of a timer is that a timer forces me (as the gamer) to play through situations as if they were "real world" when they are in fact not. My purpose in playing a game is to have fun, not to mae rushed decisions or hasty actions in an artificial environment that make the game less fun for me.

 

Now I am not saying that WOULD happen, if the timer was well implemented, but that would be my concern.

 

And I know you are denying the "real world" aspect of your suggestions, but the pressure of time is a "real world" pressure.