Urgency: Please Have It

[Shadenuat]

"Safety" in quests leads to story and setting diminishment, unless quest's idea states otherwise. Sometimes if that army of brigands plans to attack village in 2 weeks, they should rightfuly do so.

[Poolp]

Dynamic events or event that occurs at certain time everyday so that if you miss it one day you'll be up to do it the next: why not, but please no timers to accomplish quests please, not in a RPG.

[alphyna]

No-no-no. If I recall correctly, the game's going to have a combat pause (or am I just remembering Avellone's interviews?). In any case, I would very much like it.

 

A combat pause is always breaking the suspension of disbelief and making the game less realistic and more symbolic, bringing the mechanics on the surface. And I like it like that — I like that time itself is symbolic, nonexistant. Like in the book: you read that three years have passed and you believe it — no need to close the page and wait to "feel" it. The timeflow in such a game is virtual and depends on the events (be it quests, fighting or story progression), not on some clock.

 

Which is all fine and good, unless broken by an urgent quest. That doesn't add immersion, that breaks it by sudednly changing the rules. Can I view my inventory while the clock is ticking? Is it pause? And if yes, what's the goddamn point of the clock?

[Zombra]

No-no-no. If I recall correctly, the game's going to have a combat pause (or am I just remembering Avellone's interviews?). In any case, I would very much like it.

 

A combat pause is always breaking the suspension of disbelief and making the game less realistic and more symbolic, bringing the mechanics on the surface. And I like it like that — I like that time itself is symbolic, nonexistant. Like in the book: you read that three years have passed and you believe it — no need to close the page and wait to "feel" it. The timeflow in such a game is virtual and depends on the events (be it quests, fighting or story progression), not on some clock.

 

Which is all fine and good, unless broken by an urgent quest. That doesn't add immersion, that breaks it by sudednly changing the rules. Can I view my inventory while the clock is ticking? Is it pause? And if yes, what's the goddamn point of the clock?

Um, although you seem aware of the distinction between real time and the game clock, you seem to be having some problems with the implications of the difference. Of course you can pause the game indefinitely. Of course time can pass faster or slower in a game than in real life. When Captain Evil threatens to blow up the world in 24 hours, that doesn't mean you have to stay up all night and call in sick to work or you lose the game. Game time and real time are two different things. We all know this.

 

However, game time is still meaningful in any system that pretends to have some basis in reality. When I hear about the Elf King's daughter being kidnapped by a gang of rapists, it's not good for the game to let me file it in a quest log and then forget about it for the next 30 gameplay hours. The King should have motivating dialogue, of course, but in most games that's it! Someone tells you something is urgent, and then nothing happens. Imagine if you were reading a book that played by these same rules. The hero hears about a bomb that's about to go off, then he goes down to the store to buy some candy, calls his girlfriend, takes a nap, and then drives to work. Weeks later, he remembers the bomb and goes to disarm it. The reader is not exactly going to be thrilled by the tension. Yet this is par for the course in almost every CRPG.

 

It's very difficult to care about a character or their conflicts when they can blow off every problem with no consequences. Story conflicts become meaningless.

Edited September 18, 2012 by Zombra

[PsychoBlonde]

The thing that bugs me in games isn't urgency or the lack thereof, but FALSE urgency.

 

If you *can* take your sweet time doing something (which is fine), don't have the NPC quest-giver be all "please hurry!" and "every moment you delay could cause disaster!"

 

Also please don't put in an actual TIMER a la Fallout. Yes, that's real urgency, but it's also real nasty GM fiat.

 

Instead, if you're going to put in individual tasks where time is of the essence and it defaults/fails if the player farts around, have THOSE be the times when the NPC's GENUINELY tell you "time is of the essence!". I'd be happy with that.

[metiman]

Yes. Urgency is great. It makes the story/situation seem more compelling. If you can just bide your time for a couple of years before trying to solve the problem then it makes the problem seem rather trivial.

 

"Yeah, one of these days I'll get around to saving myself from an imminent fate worse than death or saving the world or whatever, but I'm really in no hurry to do so. <yawn>. Like I really care about those dumb supernatural effects that are supposed to affect me. Hah! Think I'll just take another nap."

 

It would be sort of like reading a novel where the main character didn't particularly care about the central conflict. Maybe he'll get around to trying to solve it in the next book, but he probably won't be bothered. I suppose this sort of attitude could add an element of humor. Having said that I wouldn't mind a switch in an .ini file somewhere to turn off the consequences of being a lazy protagonist. It might help replay value.

[Lucas]

Generally speaking, I wouldn't really like a "countdown" for any of the main quest plotlines.

 

But, it would be interesting to have time in general interwoven with some side quests, especially if shops/building close at night and certain events only happen at certain times of the day, maybe mentioned by the quest giver/quest journal.

 

So, if the Devs plan to implement the possibility of failing quests (not just abandon them) as in Arcanum, time could be a factor, among other things (dialogue choices, combat, etc.)

[kenup]

I agree with this. If all hell is about to break loose, I shouldn't be able to go to the other side of the map, kill the rats that the old woman in the bar was running from, and then returned to find everything just as it was. On the other hand even with this, it would be great to have certain cases in which your character could kick back and relax for a bit.

[Gurkog]

I liked how the companions in BG series had time sensitive quests that are usually related to or near the major quest events. They are optional, but reward the player for going to the critical places and doing the main events in a timely manner. The NPC may leave or even attack you for wasting their time with your false promise of help if you do not finish their objectives within a reasonable time frame.

Edited September 19, 2012 by Gurkog

[Zombra]

On the other hand even with this, it would be great to have certain cases in which your character could kick back and relax for a bit.

Definitely. I also love it in RPGs when the "Main Quest" stops for a while ... like you literally have no clear direction ... and it's clear that you have no clear direction. I still remember when the spymaster in Morrowind tells you, "I'm not even going to give you the next phase of your mission yet. Go screw around for a while and come back in a few days." In the case of the haunted character, what if he still gets that weird feeling every night, but the ghosts suddenly stop coming?

 

Just as there needs to be urgency to make a strong story convincing, there should also be moments of rest. Constant pressure is just as bad as no pressure. It's no good if I have to sprint so hard for the finish line that I never see any of the cool stuff off the race track.

[Nakia]

While I don't like time limits on the main quest I wouldn't be against a few urgent sidequests, It's always slightly annoyed me when a quest is presented with a sense of urgency but on a replay it turns out that I could sit around for a year if I wanted to.

 

My feelings exactly.

[Lars Westergren]

What iof their could be something like a Time mode? I.e. when you first start the game, you can choose for things to be time sensitive, or to just disable the time counter for the quests. That way, both sides can be happy; those who want it can have it, and those that don't can just put a checkmark in the box, and continue on their merry way.

 

That would add a lot of burden on Obsidian to create extra content and test. For many quests, they would have to write an "failed due to timeout" result path in addition to all the other result paths. Like the "can't we have both RTwP and fully turn based modes?" I think that would risk falling into the trying to please everybody and ending up pleasing no one trap.

[Zombra]

What iof their could be something like a Time mode? I.e. when you first start the game, you can choose for things to be time sensitive, or to just disable the time counter for the quests. That way, both sides can be happy; those who want it can have it, and those that don't can just put a checkmark in the box, and continue on their merry way.

 

That would add a lot of burden on Obsidian to create extra content and test. For many quests, they would have to write an "failed due to timeout" result path in addition to all the other result paths. Like the "can't we have both RTwP and fully turn based modes?" I think that would risk falling into the trying to please everybody and ending up pleasing no one trap.

Agree. Throwing in extra optional modes in a half-assed attempt to please everyone is always a bad idea. It's better to have one mode, one coherent game design.

[Jarmo]

I definitely wouldn't like the whole game to be timed, in a way that after playing 20 hours, you get a *time out, game over*.

Even if it's implemented in some clever way.

 

On the other hand, if you get a mission where a fort is being attacked by globoldies, you definitely shouldn't be able to take your sweet time.

And this would be just the place where could you milk my cows, I'll give you 5GP and 20XP, should be replied with "no time".

[Redwulf]

Urgency is good, as long as we are not punished for taking time to sniff the forest air. A good book will keep the reader turning pages by increasing the conflict bit by bit, making it more serious, more deadly. A good game should probably follow a similar system. So I'm not so sure if at first you want the main character to face an epic challenge, you should probably start with smaller conflicts. However these conflicts can and should at the time seem like a big deal to the player, though by the endgame they are small potatoes. Urgency is good, but, one has to watch out about spoiling a climax too. But with the people they have working on this game, I'm sure they will handle all this rather well.

EDIT: In my view no part should be timed, if it were, it wouldn't be as enjoyable for quite a few players(me included). However, in the scene Jarmo talked about above with the fort being attacked, you could make it so if you do defeat the enemy slowly there will be noticeably less defenders still alive, thus giving one motivation to defeat the enemy as fast as possible. Perhaps you could even gain bigger quest rewards if you complete certain missions faster. However you should be able to play at your own speed and still be able to beat the game. Afterall, all a timed game would do for slower/methodical players is make them more frustrated and just have to reload again and again until they finally complete it in the time allotted, and that doesn't serve the gamer's enjoyment in my view.

Edited September 21, 2012 by Redwulf

[cyberarmy]

I really dont like urgency feeling on main quests.( Fallout 1 im looking at you!)

However side quests/event are different and it would be nice to some "timed" events. Like someone needing an urgent antidote/cure holding on for weeks makes no sense or some ransoming bandits wont wait for you to pay a long time.

[actionjezus6]

My main problem with obligatory urgency is that you can't say no to it.

If you are playing game with no enforced urgency, you still CAN roleplay it and hurry your ass up, while when playing with enforced urgency you can't just say "I will take my time".

I don't see why it's so important for people to have "timer" hard-coded, if they still can hurry if they want - the only thing it does is making everybody to hurry up.

 

As a game-play option (putted aside from game difficulty) I have nothing against that idea - let the players choose what floats their boats.

As something enforced on every player I am completely against it (I think cons overweight pros).

 

(And the other discussion is matter of urgency in RPG. In my opinion and from my experience it is something terrible and awful even in pen&paper RPGs, and getting even more annoying, immersion-breaking and fun-spoiling in cRPGs).

Edited September 21, 2012 by actionjezus6

[Tuco Benedicto]

I like some urgency and even occasional time limits as long as they aren't too strict.

 

"I have this problem and I need to solve it in a reasonable amount of time or pay the consequences for it" -> Great. Excellent, in fact.

"I have this problem and I need to rush the game to be able to keep the pace with the quest timer" -> Bad. Very bad.

[Zombra]

My main problem with obligatory urgency is that you can't say no to it.

 

As a game-play option (putted aside from game difficulty) I have nothing against that idea - let the players choose what floats their boats.

As something enforced on every player I am completely against it (I think cons overweight pros).

Yeah. Again, I advocate a strong, focused design, and not something that tries to please everyone. It's good, even necessary, for some things to be "obligatory" in any design; otherwise it just turns into a big "whatever". Whatevers don't challenge me, entice me, or hold my interest.

 

Anything that tries to please everyone is automatically displeasing to me.

 

I just wanted to get the word out and hopefully the devs will see that a significant portion of the forumgoers here are insulted by games that try to dress up fake conflicts, and threaten consequences that never happen.

 

In my opinion and from my experience [urgency]is something terrible and awful even in pen&paper RPGs ...

Wow. I'm sorry, you've had horrible DMs.

[actionjezus6]

@Zombra

I haven't had.

Stop acting like your point of view is ultimately right and correct.

I didn't went for discussion about pros and cons of urgency on purpose - simply because "In matters of taste, there can be no disputes" - I won't convince you, you will not convince me. However you did created the topic for devs to know your point of view, I responded to have my point of view noted. Simply as that.

[Poolp]

I don't play a RPG to always have to hurry my ass up for doing stuff... I'd say OK for some kind of timed events at certain time, but not always have some kind of timers all the time on the whole game.

[HansKrSG]

I agree to having a sense of urgency in quests and the main storyline, but hard time limits stress me to the level of not enjoying the game (as much).

Edited September 21, 2012 by HansKrSG

[Aotrs Commander]

I hate hate HATE timed games, because I have to rush through the game and that feels more like work than fun usually. It's always hanging over my head, and it just detracts from the fun to varying amounts. I just flat-out don't want to be under pressure (all through the game), it's just not what I play computer games for. It doesn't, to me, add urgency, merely unfun hassle. It's also more likely to make me play through with a walkthrough (especially if there is lots of "missable" stuff¹ - Persona 3 is a great game, but I'm following it through on a by-rote walkthrough, because that's still more fun that whittling about getting it wrong as I would otherwise (especially given how very tight on time you are.))

 

Notable point: despite being apparently considered better than the original game, I have never completed Mask of the Betrayer for the simple fact that rushing around because of the soul-eating thing made it feel like too much hard work for something I emphatically play for stress-relief. (I get what little under-pressure fun I want from playing tabletop wargames; I don't play computer games for the same thing.) I like the dramatic timing, where the game waits for me.

 

So I REALLY don't want a timed main plot, because there is an above average possibilty it'd make it literally unplayably unfun for me.

 

HOWEVER, though I am not fond of the concept at the very best of times, I will acquiesce to the fact that having some timed quests (or timed portions of quests) would be acceptable. So long as people have said, it's made obvious that this really is a timed quest (as people say, NPCs saying "you must hurry" when it's not true is a bit silly, and tends to merely make for some metagame humour where the players goes "get to it in my own time, thanks...!" and then goes off to fetch the barman's missus' left shoe she left way back in the forest somewhere...).

 

I'm definitely not fond of the idea of "if you don't do it now, there are consequences" for anything other than those few quests, though - otherwise you end up right back at the carefully planned walkthrough so you don't miss anything/optimum time management. And I don't want to miss anything. Experience has shown me that I rarely play any game more than once or twice (heck, Torment is the RPG I've played most, and I've only played that through about 3 and a half times), so while some level of replayability is nice, I just plain don't want to miss things on the first run.

 

So yeah - some timed things would be okay - and even appropriate, given that the IE did have some - but definitely not the majority of the game, and double-especially not the whole of the main plot.

 

 

 

¹That's another thing I generally dislike, areas you can't get back to that contain powerful items/companions whathaveyou that if you miss the first time you can never get, because it means more walkthroughs. Now, I'm not so dead-set again it as with timing, and there are places where it is useful or advisable to do that (Lothering in DA:O springs to mind), but it shouldn't apply to the whole game. Of course, the IE games were in general, very good at avoiding that, or at least telegraphing it so you knew (it's more something JRPGs are fond of, as they are very good at trying to add busy-work or trying to get you to play through the games endlessly).

Edited September 21, 2012 by Aotrs Commander

[Darth Trethon]

Sorry but no....I enjoy taking my time to explore the world and talk to NPCs and chase down loot and do side quests and on and on and on. The absolute last thing I need is time constraints that result in negative consequences for not rushing through the game. I know Obsidian is very proud of all their work and want us to plauy and experience everything they dedicate their hard work to create so I really do not see why they would try to rush us along and essentially try to cnvince us to avoid experiencing anything outside the main plot.

[Azzy]

I'm not a fan of urgency real or imagined over long stretches. Take Baldurs Gate 2 you had Imoen taken from you right after the first area I thus rushed though to get the money needed to get to her. This meant the areas that were available then got largely ignored, as I followed the storyline, till my subsequent playthroughs where I ignored any and all attempts to get me to go anywhere and I languidly strolled the area looking for stuff do leaving Imoen to get thoroughly worked over by crazy torturer guy.

 

Outside of that there is a gaming expectation that time limits aren't real so if you "sneak" an actual consequence into the game for playing on the swings for three weeks while a town is being burnt to the ground expect some "surprise" from the gamers. Not that I'm saying not to do this but perhaps not with something on the main story line.

 

While its good to think about these things I really would prefer that if its pertinent to the game that Obsidian creates a poll of sorts though kickstarter and pings us that way so that the discussion is set by them and grabs as many backers as possible not just those willing to lower themselves into the quagmire that are the forums. Same thing goes for all the hot knife party topics.