Urgency: Please Have It

[wbn]

Maybe instead of the threat of looming failure for taking your time it would be more of a bonus for experienced players to get a special item/scene that you would otherwise miss.

 

FFIX did this with a weapon and Suikoden II with a special scene for one character. It isn't something you would miss having (unless you're a completionist) but a reward for making a tight deadline through much of the game.

 

 

 

I absolutely agree with this. Punishment alienates the people that don't want to be rushed, so positive reinforcement is the way to go.

[Ausir]

I'd also like at least some of the quests to be time sensitive. I liked the sense of urgency in the original Fallout.

Edited September 21, 2012 by Ausir

[trulez]

I wouldn't mind seeing few quests with urgency implemented, but those should be OPTIONAL quests, none of the main line quests should have it.

[mayfaire]

I think the key distinction should be "some timed quests" as opposed to "limited time game" (alá Fallout). If there are timed quests, that provides urgency, but you can still enjoy the game as a whole at your leisure.

 

I do like the OP's haunted idea, though. Something like that, maybe slightly less dire, is a good way to remind the PC that they're involved and that they have something important they're supposed to be doing. Don't think that needs to be something with a time limit, though, just something that occurs across the game, perhaps escalating over time, but with a reasonable peak.

[Amentep]

My hope would be that the game itself would make following the quests to resolution urgent through engaging me in the story.

 

While it would be neat to see a game take into account partial or absent actions on a quest after a certain time, I'd imagine that each level of added scrutiny would up the complexity of the game.

 

That said if quests are going to be time sensitive I hope the game gives us a clear direction to go in (something that I kind of felt Fallout lacked*)

 

 

*Its been years since I played the game, but my memory was it wasn't difficult to miss things and thus miss where to go to get the waterchip - but my memory may be cheating.

Edited September 21, 2012 by Amentep

[Pangur]

I'm one of those who like to thoroughly explore the game world without being rushed. A few timed quests is ok for a change of pace, but please please no global timer.

[limaxophobiacq]

One or two timed quests would be ok as long as it's clear you have limited time and you know what time limit is, but if they make the overall plot time limited I'll probably wait untill I get a mod that removes the limit before playing.

[Syraxis]

I'm against time limits, when I play an RPG I like to play at my own pace and not risk losing out on content because I didn't prioritize a certain quest and complete it at some arbitrary time limit.

[licketysplit]

I don't mind if some quests are time sensitive, or failed due to completing some other event. But I prefer this to be the exception.

Edited September 21, 2012 by licketysplit

[Sarathen]

I'd be in favor of some sort of time-sensitive mechanic for certain situations because, for me, it makes the world feel real. For example, I liked in Mass Effect 2 how if you didn't immediately go to rescue your crew when they get abducted, then it would lead to them dying. This didn't prevent you from completing the game; it simply was the logical consequence to delaying a rescue mission. This sort of reactivity made the world feel authentic and gave the protagonist's actions weight.

 

This is exactly what came to my mind when I saw the thread title. It's an appropriately urgent situation, and if you don't get it in gear, there will be consequences. Not 'game over, sucker' consequences, it's just that there are logical implications to your inaction.

 

I'd prefer it not be overused, though. For example, let's say there's a temple that's infested with undead, and adventures who sally forth do not return. Well, that's bad and all, but unless the undead are venturing out of the temple, it's not actually that urgent. These other wussy adventurers could just, you know...stop going in there. (Buncha idiots, don't they know I'm the hero around here?) It's the kind of quest that makes sense to either handle in your own sweet time or address right away, depending on what sort of character you play.

 

To use another poster's example- the farmer's wife was kidnapped by trolls and they plan on eating her? They're not going to sit around and wait for you, the woman's going to be a goner as soon as they're hungry enough. So your options are to a) blow the frantic farmer off and continue on, b) accept the quest and save her promptly, or c) accept the quest, go wander off for five days and fail the quest because she's being digested in a troll's belly.

 

It's certainly more complicated, but I think it's the sort of mechanic that improves immersion and replayability.

 

Edit to add: I really, strongly dislike an overal game countdown, even if it's 'more realistic'. And I absolutely loathe important events that happen only on a certain day that I may or may not be able to divine ahead of time, that require I go to a certain place that I might not normally visit at that specific time or talk to a specific person that I don't have a reason to talk to everyday. And if you don't do it on day X of your adventure, too bad. No one will ever mention it again. Quest for Glory IV and Persona 3 (from what I remember), I'm looking at you.

Edited September 21, 2012 by Sarathen

[vattghern]

perhaps not for the main quest in a "hurry up or game over" sort of way but i can see some side quests have a time component

 

say if you tarry too long to rescue someone they will die, but instead of a flat out failed quest the objective changes and now you have to find the killers through some clues instead of the npc telling you outright who captured him

[alphyna]

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.

Surely, if the same works for all quests except the most mundane (collecting pelts and stuff can surely be postponed). The elven lady is close to being raped? Clock. You've seen a mysterious stranger walking by? Clock (surely you don't want to lose his trail!). You were asked to work as a courier for some royalty? Clock (it's an important man, you don't want him to wait!). Orcs are swarming the neighbourhood? Triple clock — ors are hot-blooded and it definitely won't take them long to attack the city!

 

I think that urgency should come from storytelling, not from some arbitrary game mechanics slammed into my face. You should write the quest in such a way that I would want to finish it here and now to learn what comes next. Otherwise it's lazy writing.

[Stun]

I say NAY! I don't want friggin timed quests, or other action-game tropes.

 

 

 

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.

When it comes to quests, It's always good when a game lets you do what you want. Am I the only one here who still remembers "archaic" things like player agency and roleplaying? Why are we asking a game to force us to do a so-called crisis quest immediately when we may not want to? Why can't the player have the choice to roleplay that Urgency or not, depending on his own whims??

 

Like the poster above me said, any well written story should be able to instill that urgency into the player's mind by its very writing alone. If it can't, if it has to set timers and put up ticking clocks to get the player to act promptly, then it has already failed.

Edited September 22, 2012 by Stun

[NerdBoner]

the Water chip Fallout 1 route is the ideal way to go...you have a time limit but its like 6 friggin months before water runs out in the vault. You could however have water shipped to the vault to extend your search time for a new water chip.

 

Even then, that is only the first half of the game, after you meet the Water chip deadline you are given a new quest with no real time limit allowing for further exploration...it was truly a win-win...

Edited September 22, 2012 by NerdBoner

[NerdBoner]

I say NAY! I don't want friggin timed quests, or other action-game tropes.

 

 

<sigh> Am I the only one here who still remembers "archaic" things like player agency and roleplaying? Why are we asking a game to force us to do a so called crisis quest immediately when we may not want to? Why can't the player have the choice to roleplay that Urgency or not, depending on his own whims??

because its ridiculous...if you don't want to save the Elf kings daughter from the rapists tell the Elf king "**** you, elfy!" and reject his quest, accepting the consequences.

 

but if you do accept a CLEARLY urgent quest, you shouldn't go skipping around the countryside navel gazing and what not because you think thats "role playing"...unless you're roleplaying an **** or a lunatic in which case it makes perfect sense to do those things.

 

ignoring the urgency of a quest (aka my house is burning, please save my child quickly) to go have a drink and take in the ambiance of the local tavern is irresponsible (which again could be a form of roleplaying) and SHOULD have consequences.

 

I mean, is that damn house supposed to burn for months on end until you decide you want to get around to it?

[kenup]

ignoring the urgency of a quest (aka my house is burning, please save my child quickly) to go have a drink and take in the ambiance of the local tavern is irresponsible (which again could be a form of roleplaying) and SHOULD have consequences.

 

I mean, is that damn house supposed to burn for months on end until you decide you want to get around to it?

 

This. I don't understand why people want to take their time with everything and use roleplaying as a reason. Isn't roleplaying about choices and consequences? You are a mage with high intelligence and low strength? you can cast spells, but can't pick up that warhammer and run around like a boss caring it. The opposite is true for the big dump fighter character. Shouldn't the same apply to quests? Wasn't that enough of a problem with skyrim(and previous Elder Scrolls games)?

 

So after the first TG quest you learn that the bad guy plans to take a certain treasure. But nothing happens if you wait for even years(so to speak I didn't wait that much) in game. And even near the end, where your allies tell you that they will wait for you at the place you go to confront the guy. They will wait and wait and wait, even if you completely forgot about them. And the most annoying guy in the fighters guild will wait for you to become a warewolf indefinitely. He or his assistant never go out of that 10 square meter cave for a drink or food or even just to take a walk!

 

And these are only a few examples. Story telling and common sense might tell you that it's urgent to do something. But shouldn't the same storytelling principle show you why it is/was urgent to do something?

 

Lastly don't go saying that you won't be able to do everything in a game. Nobody said you have to finish the MQ in 5 hours. If the main plot has cases where it needs you to be quick on your toes, I'm sure it will give us a reasonable amount of things that we will HAVE TO DO during that limited time. And there will certainly be cases in which you can relax and take your time.

 

And no clocks need to show up. Just the log pre-failure: "You have to do this and that bla bla bla. (You have a limited amount of time)/(You got to be quick)". And after that just a "You didn't get there in time". No timers no nothing.

Edited September 22, 2012 by kenup

[Vandoon]

I would really like to see game time have an impact. Over many games I have become desensitised to the pointless cries of “Help we must act now” only to realise that I can spend infinite time in exploring and that said consequences have not been impacted. I do not want to feel rushed however there should be a motivator to rescue someone or stop an attack or the person you are looking for moving on. Sometimes PCs need a push and the death of an NPC if they waste time or the village is destroyed could be applicable. Don’t make the timers too tight because exploring is great but the plot can change down a different path The person is now in location x (further away, harder to get to, more dangerous) The village that had resources and contacts is decimated and now is empty, clues not available, companions dead or injured, A potential house location destroyed. A world event clock can be good with an even more generous time however it would often be too slow to bring any relevance to the speed gamers and those that go everywhere and do everything would be unable to complete it. Unless there was PC driven events that can add time or accelerate time. The bad guys see the PCs actions and move up the clock or the PC deals a set back to them and the timer slows. I feel if global timers are used the PCs should not see it. Implied urgency with consequences generally works better.

[Stun]

I don't see why we need the game to force that urgency. Can't we just do it ourselves? If you think it's stupid that one can take 30 days to save that child from that burning building then.... don't do it. Go immedietly and fulfill that quest. And let the rest of us do what we want.

 

Asking a game to arbitrarily impose urgency on the player - because you think the player will be too dumb to promptly react to an emergency otherwise - goes counter to the notion of Role playing. It's also a form of metagaming. Does your quest log have ESP? Does it have the clairvoyance needed to tell you precisely how long you have to save the elf maiden from rapists before they decide to kill her?

 

I think BG2 did it best. You were allowed to impose your own Urgency with regards to saving Imoen - Or- you were allowed to take your time on it. Could you imagine how lame and freedom-constricting BG2 would have been if you were forced to save imoen within a set time limit otherwise she died?

Edited September 22, 2012 by Stun

[evdk]

I don't see why we need the game to force that urgency. Can't we just do it ourselves? If you think it's stupid that one can take 30 days to save that child from that burning building then.... don't do it. Go immedietly and fulfill that quest. And let the rest of us do what we want.

 

Asking a game to arbitrarily impose urgency on the player - because you think the player is too dumb to react to an emergency the way you think he should - goes counter to the notion of Role playing. It's also a form of metagaming. Does your quest log have ESP? Does it have the clairvoyance needed to tell you precisely how long you have to save the elf maiden from rapists before they decide to kill her?

 

I think BG2 did it best. You were allowed to impose your own Urgency with regards to saving Imoen - Or- you were allowed to take your time on it. Could you imagine how lame and freedom-constricting BG2 would have been if you were forced to save imoen within a set time limit otherwise she died?

If a child is trapped in a burning building and you do not go to save it immediately it will either burn to death or get saved by some other means. It certainly won't wait for you for a month to get around to saving him. Choices and consequences. There need not be any "ESP" or some such bull**** to tell you the exact time until quest failure - it's simply logical that a fire will resolve quickly. You can certainly decide you have better things to do like admiring the scenery or visiting a brothel but then you will fail the quest, no harm done. That's roleplaying and not your frankly insane notion that it means to do whatever you want while the whole game gets put on hold.

Ad the Imoen example - you just choose a sufficiently large time limit while also communicate the urgency to the player in a comprehensive manner and then you can certainly put a time limit on rescuing her. See Fallout 1 and the water chip quest. They tell you they will all die without it and they do, after 70 days or so. Now that is quest design and not a mayor asking the hero to close the demon gate lest the incessant spawning demons overwhelm his small town in but a few days without any possibility of it actually happening.

 

TLDR - larping is the disease killing old school cRPGs and the sooner it is cured the better.

Edited September 22, 2012 by evdk

[TimB99]

I don't have to be forced down the rails through the entire course of the game - in fact it's great if sometimes I have no idea what I'm supposed to do next - but the story should always be looming, and always making me want to resolve it.

 

Ohh.. That IS interesting..

 

Imagine it.. After one mission, you just have no idea what to do anymore. So you go ask people in-game for intel. You get some pointers, but nothing concrete. Your companions make comments about being sleepy, and at some point you decide to go to sleep (perhaps in-transit towards some other location on the map). Then suddenly, there's news in the newspaper/rumours in the street that some major city is destroyed (or whatever). BAM! There's your lead, and damn did the stakes just get raised a bunch.

 

How's that for urgency? ;p

 

-Tim

[Stun]

If a child is trapped in a burning building and you do not go to save it immediately it will either burn to death or get saved by some other means. It certainly won't wait for you for a month to get around to saving him. Choices and consequences. There need not be any "ESP" or some such bull**** to tell you the exact time until quest failure - it's simply logical that a fire will resolve quickly. You can certainly decide you have better things to do like admiring the scenery or visiting a brothel but then you will fail the quest, no harm done. That's roleplaying and not your frankly insane notion that it means to do whatever you want while the whole game gets put on hold.

Ad the Imoen example - you just choose a sufficiently large time limit while also communicate the urgency to the player in a comprehensive manner and then you can certainly put a time limit on rescuing her. See Fallout 1 and the water chip quest. They tell you they will all die without it and they do, after 70 days or so. Now that is quest design and not a mayor asking the hero to close the demon gate lest the incessant spawning demons overwhelm his small town in but a few days without any possibility of it actually happening.

 

TLDR - larping is the disease killing old school cRPGs and the sooner it is cured the better.

 

Aah, the realism argument, is it? What else do you want the game to impose on us sheep? Should someone who takes their time, admires the scenery and spends a few hours chatting with NPCs at the inn fail to even get the burning building quest because the fire occured while he was away?

 

Again, what's wrong with the way BG2 handled the Imoen questline? Does our thirst for action-game urgency REALLY trump classic role-playing freedom of exploration and taking your time to do what you want? Or better yet, what's wrong with the way Planescape handled the Carceri questline(s)?

Edited September 22, 2012 by Stun

[evdk]

If a child is trapped in a burning building and you do not go to save it immediately it will either burn to death or get saved by some other means. It certainly won't wait for you for a month to get around to saving him. Choices and consequences. There need not be any "ESP" or some such bull**** to tell you the exact time until quest failure - it's simply logical that a fire will resolve quickly. You can certainly decide you have better things to do like admiring the scenery or visiting a brothel but then you will fail the quest, no harm done. That's roleplaying and not your frankly insane notion that it means to do whatever you want while the whole game gets put on hold.

Ad the Imoen example - you just choose a sufficiently large time limit while also communicate the urgency to the player in a comprehensive manner and then you can certainly put a time limit on rescuing her. See Fallout 1 and the water chip quest. They tell you they will all die without it and they do, after 70 days or so. Now that is quest design and not a mayor asking the hero to close the demon gate lest the incessant spawning demons overwhelm his small town in but a few days without any possibility of it actually happening.

 

TLDR - larping is the disease killing old school cRPGs and the sooner it is cured the better.

 

Aah, the realism argument, is it? What else do you want the game to impose on us sheep? Should someone who takes their time, admires the scenery and spends a few hours chatting with NPCs at the inn fail to even get the burning building quest because the fire occured while he was away?

 

Again, what's wrong with the way BG2 handled the Imoen questline? Or better yet, what's wrong with the way Planescape handled the Carceri questline?

I like PS:T but everything after Sigil is mostly **** so my answer to your question is EVERYTHING.

 

Ad your lovable sheep comment - if you feel that way I certainly can't help you, but one would assume that given it is a game the fire wouldn't start until you enter the map and are told about it. If you then decide that right now it's ninja cartographer time and decide to let the kid burn I don't see why the game should wait for you. See for example the dog in Arcanum. If you don't save it it gets kicked to death. No more doggie.

 

My opinion on this essentially boils down to this: if designers want to have an impending sense of doom and a do it now or all shall burn narrative in quests the game should somehow reflect that - by making the quest more difficult or impossible to complete later on. If on the other hand they do not want to limit the player in any way then they should abstain from writing quests in such a way that any reasonable human being would expect some time limit be involved. To take your own example it is stupid to send you to save an elven maiden from rape at the hand of bandits and then have them keep her alive and nonviolated for weeks while waiting on you to come deliver swift justice. That's just poor game design pure and simple.

[Odarbi]

Should someone who takes their time, admires the scenery and spends a few hours chatting with NPCs at the inn fail to even get the burning building quest because the fire occured while he was away?

 

You shouldn't fail to get the quest, but you should definitely not be able to spend 1 year of in game time after hearing about it to go deal with it. Inaction on the matter is just as much a choice as going to save the kid right away, and the game should reflect that.

[Stun]

Ad your lovable sheep comment - if you feel that way I certainly can't help you, but one would assume that given it is a game the fire wouldn't start until you enter the map and are told about it.

See, but that's the thing about trying to impose realism in Fantasy. You're forced to draw arbitrary lines in the sand on what's acceptable suspension of belief and what isn't. The fact of the matter is that it's equally illogical for something like a Fire to occur only when the protagonist is present, as it is for someone inside a burning building to survive for as long as it takes for the protagonist to rescue them.

 

 

My opinion on this essentially boils down to this: if designers want to have an impending sense of doom and a do it now or all shall burn narrative in quests the game should somehow reflect that

And my opinion is that the *Story* should reflect it. A well written story should sufficiently instill that sense of urgency. If actual gameplay mechanics have to be imposed on the player because the story itself wasn't powerful enough to get the player to act right away, then the devs have already failed.

Edited September 22, 2012 by Stun

[Rabain]

The time sensitivity thing really can be bad though, just from a logic perspective. So this daughter of the elf king kidnapped by rapists has been waiting for you to appear at her fathers court to accept a quest that turns out is so urgent you just have to do it now or...well you know...but hey its a pity you just spent a week in a dungeon instead of going directly to the Elf Kings Hall from that other town you were in...right?

 

Games like Skyrim annoy me because of the lack of urgency but it isn't just that, it is the lack of plain direction. I am quite fine in games like BG where they tell me I have to explore the Cloakwood mines but I can take 4 weeks before doing that and explore the rest of the Sword Coast because I know I have to be X level to actually get through the mines and out the other side or it just becomes a game of me constantly reloading the QuickSave.

 

There is an element of meta gaming in everything we do in games, regardless of them being rpgs or whatever. I like in BG for example where I can't just travel from Candlekeep to BG city unless I have been through a number of areas between. Dragon Age Origins was worse in that regard in my opinion, I reach X point in the story and I'm allowed to travel across the entire country to some city that previously I wasn't even allowed to try to travel to?

 

Urgency should be left up to the player, you want to chase the Bad Guy down, go ahead. What happens when you just get plain stuck due to being too low level to continue the main story? What do you pretend to yourself to justify levelling up some more in some random dungeon? To me this is why we get games like DaO that are really restrictive on your travel options because the developer didn't want you in some area below a certain level.

 

Urgency should only be general and not on a timer, for example you need to steal X at night from the merchants house. Doesn't matter if it is tonight, tomorrow night or some night next week. The urgency will be felt from the moment you entire the house to the time you lift the goods and exit. You don't really need some dude chasing after you for not going the very same night you got the quest.

 

All that will do is make players feel like they have to do every quest right when they get it before picking up another quest and that just sounds really bad.