Some thoughts on urgency, consequences and parallel non-linear missions

[Gurkog]

There should be breaks set into the main quest line that allow a player to explore without penalty, but there should also be parts where ignoring quests changes the outcome. A mix of both keeps things refreshing, because if all tasks are time sensitive they start to lose impact.

[Shevek]

Timed side quests are bad enough. Timed main story lines just kill the entire game.

[ogrezilla]

Timed side quests are bad enough. Timed main story lines just kill the entire game.

in your opinion. Every bad thing in the world waiting for my say so to actually happen could kill the entire game. In my opinion.

 

again, if they never show you a clock, how will you know? Nobody is promoting timed quests that result in game over.

 

A group of barbarians is on their way to town. The townfolk ask you for help. Please find us materials to make bows and arrows. please help us fortify the walls. Please go find the hunting party out in the woods and tell them to return. Instead you go pick flowers in the fields. You come back to town and its burned to the ground. The game doesn't stop. Or maybe you do two of the quests and save the town with a handful of dead. Or you do all three and scare the barbarians away without a drop of blood. In any case, the story would continue with you dealing with whatever consequences arise from your specific set of actions.

Edited September 22, 2012 by ogrezilla

[Shevek]

Obviously its my opinion. I'm typing it aren't I?

[Odarbi]

There should be breaks set into the main quest line that allow a player to explore without penalty, but there should also be parts where ignoring quests changes the outcome. A mix of both keeps things refreshing, because if all tasks are time sensitive they start to lose impact.

 

Definitely. Urgency where a significantly urgent quest is due. Not overused, simply where it makes sense to have limited time.

 

Going to investigate an old tomb? No real need to be urgent on that.

Going to investigate an old tomb to find a magical item that can be used to fend off a dragon that plans to attack in a week? Yeah, consequences for failure.

[Stun]

This entire argument operates in the complete vacuum of in game explanations for allowing the player to delay something that the story defines as urgent. An example was made early on this thread about a big bad army assembing at the border - and how the player shouldn't be allowed to casually/nonchalantly go about his day ignoring this army.

 

But thatis a terrible example. There could be a MILLION reasons why that army chooses to wait, and not cross the border, until the player decides he wants to pursue that quest. often times in RPGs, we're Told that reason. Mask of the Betrayer, for example. Okku waits...waits in front of the Mulsantir gates for the spirit eater. Why? Because he's described as wise and calculating. Voila.... Problem solved. There's Still urgency, but the option for the player to take his time is still open, thanks to the writers covering the bases.

Edited September 22, 2012 by Stun

[incubus9]

Why should your preferred way of roleplaying/ adventuring be preferred over mine though?

 

Because roleplaying requires context. If context dictates urgency, but the mechanics don't, then you're robbed of a roleplaying opportunity. If you don't even act according to the story in spite that Gameplay and Story Segregation... then you're doing many things, except roleplaying.

 

And in that scenario, I do believe his way of 'actually roleplaying' is preferable.

Why should your preferred way of roleplaying/ adventuring be preferred over mine though?

 

Because roleplaying requires context. If context dictates urgency, but the mechanics don't, then you're robbed of a roleplaying opportunity. If you don't even act according to the story in spite that Gameplay and Story Segregation... then you're doing many things, except roleplaying.

 

And in that scenario, I do believe his way of 'actually roleplaying' is preferable.

 

Like I said I don't like being forced to do things or miss stuff because I'm taking my time with something.

 

If the game presents me with a clear choice, then sure, but if it makes me mess up without giving me any obvious clue that things will advance without me then it's ridiculous.

 

I don't think his roleplaying choice is more valid than mine, that's entirely subjective. You only think that because you agree with him.

 

If I wanted to play a linear corridor game then I'd go play Final Fantasy 13

 

I think the solution to these two seemingly contradicting opinions lies in the pacing of the script. What made FFXIII such a bad game was the constant spoon-fed plot line with no freedom or choice. Likewise, having a completely open game world like the Elder Scrolls series seems to forgo any sense of urgency in narrative in favor of complete player freedom. If the plot for PE is written in such a way that there are "lulls" in action and pacing, this will give the players time to do side quests. There should be times when the pacing of the story dictates that certain events are time sensitive, i.e. the army is on the march, the princess has been kidnapped and will be sacrificed on the new moon, the king will be assassinated at the Grand Jubilee, whatever. Having a constant timer to a dooms day event is just tedious and dictates playstyle too much for many people.

 

It might be interesting to include clusters of side-quests that occur only during certain time-critical moments of the main quest that give the player an option of completing optional and highly time sensitive missions that could include interesting quest rewards. This will give more options for multiple play throughs.

[Shevek]

This entire argument operates in the complete vacuum of in game explanations for allowing the player to delay something that the story defines as urgent. An example was made early on this thread about a big bad army assembing at the border - and how the player shouldn't be allowed to casually/nonchalantly go about his day ignoring this army.

 

But thatis a terrible example. There could be a MILLION reasons why that army chooses to wait, and not cross the border, until the player decides he wants to pursue that quest. often times in RPGs, we're Told that reason. Mask of the Betrayer, for example. Okku waits...waits in front of the Mulsantir gates for the spirit eater. Why? Because he's described as wise and calculating. Voila.... Problem solved. There's Still urgency, but the option for the player to take his time is still open, thanks to the writers covering the bases.

 

Exactly. Urgency can be achieved through narrative. No timers needed.

[Odarbi]

This entire argument operates in the complete vacuum of in game explanations for allowing the player to delay something that the story defines as urgent. An example was made early on this thread about a big bad army assembing at the border - and how the player shouldn't be allowed to casually/nonchalantly go about his day ignoring this army.

 

But thatis a terrible example. There could be a MILLION reasons why that army chooses to wait, and not cross the border, until the player decides he wants to pursue that quest. often times in RPGs, we're Told that reason. Mask of the Betrayer, for example. Okku waits...waits in front of the Mulsantir gates for the spirit eater. Why? Because he's described as wise and calculating. Voila.... Problem solved. There's Still urgency, but the option for the player to take his time is still open, thanks to the writers covering the bases.

 

Exactly. Urgency can be achieved through narrative. No timers needed.

 

That ends up being entirely false urgency.

 

Okku will wait for spirit eater? Okay, the spirit eater just never goes to the gate and nothing ever happens. The story never progresses. The impending threat never actually does anything. That's not good writing at all. If there was some form of contingency plan for when the spirit eater doesn't show up? Sure.

 

The game should not wait around for you when it's implying urgency. It's immersion breaking and bad writing.

[Delterius]

Exactly. Urgency can be achieved through narrative. No timers needed.

 

Half of a game's narrative comes from how the player is caused to interact with it. If the game mechanics do not sustain the story, then there's no narrative.

 

 

Hey I'm the least casual gamer in the world, if anything I think it's more casual to want to rush through the main quest and not explore.

I'm all for urgency if it's restricted to side quests which only activate when my character is aware of them giving me a chance to respond either way or parts of the main quest like 'There is an army outside the keep'. I don't think that's an unfair idea.

 

What is unfair is making people miss out on 80% of the game because you want things to be 'realistic'

 

Not really, casual gaming is partially defined by a lack of commitment. If you believe exploration takes precedence over the game's narrative, no problem that's your choice - to think that because of that there should be no consequences to your choices is very much casual. In fact, to deny a game mechanic because its a hassle is one very defining stereotype of the casual gamer.

 

And I'm pretty sure your character is aware that the world exists beyond him.

 

Please, do point to me where I use the word realism.

And you guys aren't asking for this sort of stuff anyway.

 

I'm very well aware of what I'm asking, you on the other hand doesn't seem to: given the use of the word 'actiony'.

[Dermi]

Exactly. Urgency can be achieved through narrative. No timers needed.

No, gameplay should support narrative or the other way around. As it was stated couple of time already, there is this bold concept of actions having consequences. Moonlight Butterfly, for example, is starting to understand the overall concept that is discussed here: if your character learns through narrative that urgent action is required, then gameplay should support that and have you deal with consequences of you not making it in time. If someone tells you that you need to do something in two days, you can:

a) agree, do required action in two days and have it done.

b) tell him right away to get lost, because you're busy smelling flowers.

c) agree and do required action a month later.

If c) is not supported through gameplay, then narrative was just phoney and the bit about urgency was outright lie. Maybe you're comfortable with game telling you "You need to do it quick! But easy, you have all the time in the world", but I'm not (and many others in this thread).

The whole deal is, that if some side quest are written as urgent, then there should be some consequences for not making them in time. Otherwise, why even bother with sounding them as urgent, when they're not?

Edited September 22, 2012 by Dermi

[Stun]

 

 

That ends up being entirely false urgency.

 

Okku will wait for spirit eater? Okay, the spirit eater just never goes to the gate and nothing ever happens. The story never progresses. The impending threat never actually does anything. That's not good writing at all. If there was some form of contingency plan for when the spirit eater doesn't show up? Sure.

 

The game should not wait around for you when it's implying urgency. It's immersion breaking and bad writing.

Why must you assume that your debate opponent is a nutter who's only desire is to sit around forever, doing nothing?

 

Many of us are Role players, and will easily impose our own urgency to deal with an eminent threat. we don't need the game to forceably impose it.

 

As it stands, in my first playthrough of MoTB, I *didn't* "wait forever". The moment I had that conversation with Gann (where he's wincing about the spirits tearing up the land), I made my way to the front gate. Because that's all it took.

 

So...why do I prefer *that* type of urgency over the one you keep preaching for? Because in the type I described the decision felt like it was mine to make. it didn't, for example, feel like the devs were forcing me to be their storyline puppet.

Edited September 22, 2012 by Stun

[Odarbi]

That ends up being entirely false urgency.

 

Okku will wait for spirit eater? Okay, the spirit eater just never goes to the gate and nothing ever happens. The story never progresses. The impending threat never actually does anything. That's not good writing at all. If there was some form of contingency plan for when the spirit eater doesn't show up? Sure.

 

The game should not wait around for you when it's implying urgency. It's immersion breaking and bad writing.

Why must you assume that your debate opponent is a nutter who's only desire is to sit around forever, doing nothing?

 

Many of us are Role players, and will easily impose our own urgency to deal with an eminent threat. we don't need the game to forceably impose it.

 

As it stands, in my first playthrough of MoTB, I *didn't* "wait forever". The moment I had that conversation with Gann (where he's wincing about the spirits tearing up the land), I made my way to the front gate. Because that's all it took.

 

So...why do I prefer *that* type of urgency over the one you keep preaching for? Because in the type I described the decision felt like it was mine to make. it didn't, for example, feel like the devs were forcing me to be their storyline puppet.

 

I assume that you're a nutter because I keep seeing you argue that "Time is bad because I don't have time to explore" or "I want to feel like it's my decision, I don't wanna be penalized for choosing wrong". You'll have all the time in the world to explore if that's what you really want. You're not being forced or corralled into the story by the timer. You're just going to miss out on a few things here and there because you chose to ignore their urgency. That is not a penalty, it's roleplaying. You should not be able to do everything in one play through of an RPG. Time is just adding another facet to the game when it comes to the idea of quests changing based off character decision. That's all there is to it.

 

The world should change based off of your actions AND inactions, it shouldn't simply wait around for you to take action.

Edited September 22, 2012 by Odarbi

[Moonlight Butterfly]

snip

 

Why does there have to be a 'consequence' of my preferred style of play but you get to have it how you like it? There should be a consequence to rushing through the game urgently too.

 

If anything you see the ability to take your time and explore as something you dislike so you don't want it there. Yet you are putting me down and calling me casual for wanting to explore the game fully and do the content rather than rush straight to the end and finish it in 15 hours?

Edited September 22, 2012 by Moonlight Butterfly

[Delterius]

Many of us are Role players, and will easily impose our own urgency to deal with an eminent threat.

 

Which is commendable, but not a ideal situation. The player's imagination must complement gameplay, not pretend that there actually is gameplay. If there's no urgency, there's no urgency.

 

Many have already voiced that what they want is the false sense of urgency so they can explore the entirety of the game, and given that actual, interactive, urgency does not necessarily preclude full exploration and completism, that means that particular person is, as you put it, a 'nutter, whose only desire is to wait forever'.

 

snip

 

Why does there have to be a 'consequence' of my preferred style of play but you get to have it how you like it? There should be a consequence to rushing through the game urgently too.

 

In games without level scalling, there are potentially bad consequences for neglecting sidequests, especially if most of the game is made of optional content. There should be a consequence for every choice, if your preferred style of play value exploration over narrative, then so be it. Mind you, that consequence is neither necessarily good or bad, it merely is the world estabilishing a good atmosphere. Immersion and all that.

 

Again, I do not wish for a overaching plot that urges you through the entire game.

Edited September 22, 2012 by Delterius

[Stun]

I assume that you're a nutter because I keep seeing you argue that "Time is bad because I don't have time to explore" or "I want to feel like it's my decision, I don't wanna be penalized for choosing wrong". You'll have all the time in the world to explore if that's what you really want. You're not being forced or corralled into the story by the timer. You're just going to miss out on a few things here and there because you chose to ignore their urgency. That is not a penalty, it's roleplaying. You should not be able to do everything in one play through of an RPG. Time is just adding another facet to the game when it comes to the idea of quests changing based off character decision. That's all there is to it.

 

The world should change based off of your actions AND inactions, it shouldn't simply wait around for you to take action.

 

The inclusion of timed events where there's a definite "complete it on time, or else fail" does not, in any way, prevent the player from doing everything in one playthrough. Instead, it just prevents him from having a 100% quest success rate. big deal. Seems like a worthless thing to put in a game tho. Like Achievements.

 

And deciding not to drop everything to save the kidnapped elven maiden in 30 minutes or less is not "ignoring the urgency", It's simply a refusal to play the "beat the clock" minigame.

Edited September 22, 2012 by Stun

[Delterius]

And deciding not to drop everything to save the kidnapped elven maided in 30 minutes or less is not "ignoring the urgency", It's simply a refusal to play the "beat the clock" minigame.

And thus, she dies. Or maybe she escapes. Or maybe she's sold into slavery. If you character didn't care enough about the elven maiden, there's no reason to care now that something happened.

Edited September 22, 2012 by Delterius

[ogrezilla]

The inclusion of timed events where there's a definite "complete it on time, or else fail" does not, in any way, prevent the player from doing everything in one playthrough. Instead, it just prevents him from having a 100% quest success rate.

 

And deciding not to drop everything to save the kidnapped elven maided in 30 minutes or less is not "ignoring the urgency", It's simply a refusal to play the "beat the clock" minigame.

 

and that's fine. but the elven maiden should be able to be killed because of it. Or whatever consequences the writers decide to implement.

Edited September 22, 2012 by ogrezilla

[Shevek]

Half of a game's narrative comes from how the player is caused to interact with it. If the game mechanics do not sustain the story, then there's no narrative

 

Thats ridiculous. Now you are just engaged in pure sophistry.

[Odarbi]

snip

 

Why does there have to be a 'consequence' of my preferred style of play but you get to have it how you like it? There should be a consequence to rushing through the game urgently too.

 

If anything you see the ability to take your time and explore as something you dislike so you don't want it there. Yet you are putting me down and calling me casual for wanting to explore the game fully and do the content rather than rush straight to the end and finish it in 15 hours?

 

No, you're confusing the issue. We don't want to be unable to take time and explore at all. We just want the urgency implied in dialogue and story to actually enforce it's urgency, and for the story to reflect if we've failed because we took too long.

[Torgamous]

As it stands, in my first playthrough of MoTB, I *didn't* "wait forever". The moment I had that conversation with Gann (where he's wincing about the spirits tearing up the land), I made my way to the front gate. Because that's all it took.

 

So...why do I prefer *that* type of urgency over the one you keep preaching for? Because in the type I described the decision felt like it was mine to make. it didn't, for example, feel like the devs were forcing me to be their storyline puppet.

But the devs were forcing you to be their storyline puppet. If you want to participate in their storyline, you have to meet Okku at the gate. Dance, puppet. Alternatively, Okku could wait at the gate long enough to make an informed judgement about if you were ever going to show up, and if you decide to ignore him he goes and does his thing, leaving you with a different storyline.

 

The inclusion of timed events where there's a definite "complete it on time, or else fail" does not, in any way, prevent the player from doing everything in one playthrough. Instead, it just prevents him from having a 100% quest success rate.

How about "complete it on time, or you'll be given an updated objective/outcome reflecting the time you're taking to complete it"? Timing doesn't need to mean that the game says "game over, you suck" in big red letters when the time's up.

[Delterius]

Half of a game's narrative comes from how the player is caused to interact with it. If the game mechanics do not sustain the story, then there's no narrative

 

Thats ridiculous. Now you are just engaged in pure sophistry.

 

Gameplay and story segregation is a well-known fact: whenever it happens, be it by design or otherwise, it breaks the world's atmosphere. Sometimes its minor (I certainly survived the lack of urgency before, though it was often rather counter-productive), sometimes not. To integrate gameplay and story creates the perfect narrative in this medium.

Edited September 22, 2012 by Delterius

[Stun]

And deciding not to drop everything to save the kidnapped elven maided in 30 minutes or less is not "ignoring the urgency", It's simply a refusal to play the "beat the clock" minigame.

And thus, she dies. Or maybe she escapes. Or maybe she's sold into slavery. If you character didn't care enough about the elven maiden, there's no reason to care now that something happened.

Or the alternative: You took a few minutes to run to the shop to buy some arrows, and thus missed the stated deadline to save her by a few minutes.

 

Yeah, no thanks. Again, that reeks of a clock game.

Edited September 22, 2012 by Stun

[Shevek]

I still have not heard a compelling reason to pressure the player into running through content when the narrative can already convey the feeling of urgency to the player. What is the logic? Why is the player methodically enjoying all a game has to offer a bad thing? You people offer no tangible explanations.

 

This sounds like feature that would just result in people visiting gamefaqs in droves to ensure they can enjoy as much of the game as they wish to in their playthrough.

Edited September 22, 2012 by Shevek

[Odarbi]

The inclusion of timed events where there's a definite "complete it on time, or else fail" does not, in any way, prevent the player from doing everything in one playthrough. Instead, it just prevents him from having a 100% quest success rate. big deal. Seems like a worthless thing to put in a game. Like Achievements.

 

Maybe you should read the entire thread, and the other one too. I've stated MANY times that "Complete or fail" is but ONE way timed quests can play out. There are plenty of other ways too. Failing to prevent an assassination on a faction leader might lead to a power struggle, with the weakest faction hiring the player to investigate the assassination. The information gathered could then be used to cause a massive loss of prestige on the instigating faction, blah blah blah. Stopping the assassination might simply preserve the status quo, and nothing else happens as a result.

 

Failing a quest due to time does not mean "complete or fail". Failing a quest could lead to the beginning of new quest chains and story lines.

 

Either way, a player does not need a 100% quest completion rate. Failure should be reflected just as much as success.