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

[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.

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.

If the 'shop' is close enough, I can certainly see there being enough time to acquire your ammunition and saving the woman. Though I'd question why you'd risk someone's life if the vendor is very far.

 

Regardless, you can make that all up or you can actually experience that in the game.

 

I still have 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.

 

A well-written bandit note claims I have a few days to get the old or else the villager's son will die. The father's concern is expressed in a most heartfelt manner.

 

I 'rest' at the inn for anywhere between 2 months and a year, I even go to some other town and save a orphanage - but I'll always save the kid just in the nick of time.

 

The narrative just failed because the game mechanics did not support it.

 

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.

Or, you know, replayability.

Edited September 22, 2012 by Delterius

[ogrezilla]

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.

 

I think it should be situational. If I get the news from a poster in town that there is a maiden that needs saving, I should have the time to go get supplies first. If I'm in the woods and see bandits dragging the maiden to their hide out, I should not be able to go back to town, get supplies and then come back to find them still dragging her in the woods.

[ogrezilla]

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.

 

you wouldn't "miss" anything. You would just experience different things. Oh the maiden got sold to a slaver. Now I have a quest to go find her. Then the person who saved her in the woods is the one "missing" content.

Edited September 22, 2012 by ogrezilla

[Torgamous]

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.

Alternatively, the game isn't so anal about timing that restocking your supplies is enough to put you over, so running to the shop to buy some arrows just makes you more likely to succeed.

 

Besides, there's no reason that the elven maiden being sold into slavery should mean you can no longer save her. You just need to find out who she was sold to. And that quest likely isn't going to be very time-sensitive, since slaves tend to stay in one place.

[ogrezilla]

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.

Alternatively, the game isn't so anal about timing that restocking your supplies is enough to put you over, so running to the shop to buy some arrows just makes you more likely to succeed.

 

Besides, there's no reason that the elven maiden being sold into slavery should mean you can no longer save her. You just need to find out who she was sold to. And that quest likely isn't going to be very time-sensitive, since slaves tend to stay in one place.

 

Ya, I don't think all time sensitive things would literally need to be on a clock.

Edited September 22, 2012 by ogrezilla

[Stun]

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.

Yeah,. and I cited it. point?

 

 

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.

In the meantime, we're no longer talking about urgency. instead, we've dishonestly changed the subject, preferring to put forth some fantastic, quest branching choice-consequence scenarios and then attempt to tie them to Urgency so as to make "timed quests" appear to be a no-brainer Must have.

 

What you're describing can and does happen even in NON timed, NON-urgent quests. So you're not making a point.

[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.

Yeah,. and I cited it. point?

 

 

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.

In the meantime, we're no longer talking about urgency. instead, we've dishonestly changed the subject, preferring to put forth some fantastic, quest branching choice-consequence scenarios and then attempt to tie them to Urgency so as to make "timed quests" appear to be a no-brainer Must have.

 

What you're describing can and does happen even in NON timed, NON-urgent quests. So you're not making a point.

 

There's no "dishonestly changing the subject" involved since the urgency was in preventing the assassination. That something different happens as a follow up to your failure is not a lie, nor is it in anyway an attempt to tie them into urgency.

 

Quit grasping at straws.

[Dermi]

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.

So let's change situation a bit and do not talk about urgency.Let's say that in game quest-giver will tell you he's happy with you and is paying you 1000 gold (narrative), while your character doesn't receive any money (narrative doesn't have support in game mechanics). That's the same level of narrative having no consequences in actual gameplay, but I have a feeling you won't be that happy with the outcome.

[TCJ]

I'm not too much into time limits, but done properly they can be alright. For instance, Fallout 1 seemed to work out okay with the original time limit, but perhaps that's because the time limit was really much, much more than was needed to complete the quest, so in reality, you could still take time to explore. There were a couple of time related things in BG1, too... for instance, Minsc's actions if you didn't do his quest soon enough. I'm against them when the time limits are unknown (Commandos 3, ugh!) or too short, or just don't make sense. Use them sparingly and in good taste and they can add something to the game.

[Stun]

There's no "dishonestly changing the subject" involved since the urgency was in preventing the assassination. That something different happens as a follow up to your failure is not a lie, nor is it in anyway an attempt to tie them into urgency.

 

Quit grasping at straws.

Since Urgency isn't needed at all for such a quest to play out exactly as you're describing, branches and all, why are you citing it as an example on this thread in the first place?

Edited September 22, 2012 by Stun

[ogrezilla]

timed quests definitely aren't needed to allow branching like that. I just think it makes everything flow more naturally. Again, I don't want timed quests to be the norm. But I think they have their merit if used correctly. I'm still not completely sold on a literal clock (even invisible) as opposed to in game triggers.

Edited September 22, 2012 by ogrezilla

[Odarbi]

Since Urgency isn't needed at all for such a quest to play out exactly as you're describing

 

Oh, Is the assassination supposed to fail because the player said "Yes, I'll prevent it" and get there, only to find out they arrived too late anyway? Yawn. Maybe he just happens to die during the combat? Acceptable. Or is it just going to happen because you said no? If the weakest faction ends up being the one that had their leader assassinated, why would they bother hiring you to investigate the assassination when you just wouldn't help them at all in the first place?

 

You're still missing the point, but I'm really not surprised anymore. As I said before, having time adds another facet to the game in regards to character decision and story telling. Your arguments of "Timers are dumb and I don't like them" are not a counter, nor are your arguments of "This can be done without using time". You've failed to prove with either why the addition of time to a story based roleplaying game is a bad idea, and are simply arguing because you don't want to be "inconvenienced", despite still having full control of your choices, while playing the game.

[Moonlight Butterfly]

I really don't like racing against the clock it feels asinine. If it's done in a way that's more mature like the princess is kidnapped but then you can rescue her later on, then sure but if it's like 10 minutes count down from taking the quest and then fail then I'm going to feel like I'm playing a platformer or something instead of an RPG.

 

I always feel like I'm being forced to do something if it's timed and I don't like that in games.

Edited September 22, 2012 by Moonlight Butterfly

[Stun]

Since Urgency isn't needed at all for such a quest to play out exactly as you're describing

 

Oh, Is the assassination supposed to fail because the player said "Yes, I'll prevent it" and get there, only to find out they arrived too late anyway?

LOL Ok, Lets walk through this scenario.

 

1)Elven king's princess daughter gets kidnapped.

2)Elven king Hires you to free her. Marks the bandit group's hideout on your map

3)You go to the bandit hideout.

4)Bandit leader approaches you, tries to talk you into allowing them to assassinate her in exchange for [insert incentive/reward here]

5)You now have a choice. Side with the bandits and Allow the Elven princess to be assassinated -or- Side with the King and say NO and wipe out the entire bandit gang.

 

The quest then branches out according to the choice you made in #5.

 

No timer needed.

 

 

You're still missing the point, but I'm really not surprised anymore. As I said before, having time adds another facet to the game in regards to character decision and story telling.

Which means exactly nothing. Putting in fancy cinematics, QTE's, and full voice overs also adds more facets to the game, but is anyone here asking for Obsidian to turn Project Eternity into the Witcher 3?

Edited September 22, 2012 by Stun

[Odarbi]

I really don't like racing against the clock it feels asinine. If it's done in a way that's more mature like the princess is kidnapped but then you can rescue her later on, then sure but if it's like 10 minutes count down from taking the quest and then fail then I'm going to feel like I'm playing a platformer or something instead of an RPG.

 

A real time count down would definitely be dumb. I've always had the thought in mind of using days or weeks of game time for a completion.

[Odarbi]

LOL Ok, Lets walk through this scenario.

 

1)Elven king's princess daughter gets kidnapped.

2)Elven king Hires you to free her. Marks the bandit group's hideout on your map

3)You go to the bandit hideout.

4)Bandit leader approaches you, tries to talk you into allowing them to assassinate her in exchange for [insert incentive/reward here]

5)You now have a choice. Side with the bandits and Allow the Elven princess to be assassinated -or- Side with the King and say NO and wipe out the entire bandit gang.

 

The quest then branches out according to the choice you made in #5.

 

No timer needed.

 

You're still "getting there just in the nick of time", regardless of how long you take to get there. Try again.

[ogrezilla]

Since Urgency isn't needed at all for such a quest to play out exactly as you're describing

 

Oh, Is the assassination supposed to fail because the player said "Yes, I'll prevent it" and get there, only to find out they arrived too late anyway?

LOL Ok, Lets walk through this scenario.

 

1)Elven king's princess daughter gets kidnapped.

2)Elven king Hires you to free her. Marks the bandit group's hideout on your map

3)You go to the bandit hideout.

4)Bandit leader approaches you, tries to talk you into allowing them to assassinate her in exchange for [insert incentive/reward here]

5)You now have a choice. Side with the bandits and Allow the Elven princess to be assassinated -or- Side with the King and say NO and wipe out the entire bandit gang.

 

The quest then branches out according to the choice you made in #5.

 

No timer needed.

 

and that leads to a very unrealistic world where everything is bending to your whim. I want the possibility of siding with the king but she still gets assassinated. Not for every quest because there can't be unlimited options, but failure should be possible sometimes.

Edited September 22, 2012 by ogrezilla

[Shevek]

Ya, I don't think all time sensitive things would literally need to be on a clock.

 

This is all straining the limits of logic.

[Moonlight Butterfly]

 

Yeah but why should the game reward people who like that sort of gameplay and punish those who like to explore.

[ogrezilla]

Ya, I don't think all time sensitive things would literally need to be on a clock.

 

This is all straining the limits of logic.

 

if I need to save the maiden before she gets killed by the bandits, as long as I'm actively working towards that goal, I could be fine. So if I am moving through the forest towards her, I shouldn't be watching a clock in the corner tell me I need to be killing these wolves faster. But if I choose to go back to town, I could trigger her being killed.

[ogrezilla]

 

Yeah but why should the game reward people who like that sort of gameplay and punish those who like to explore.

 

which is why I think those kinds of events should be rare. They shouldn't stop you from exploring most of the time. But its a roleplaying game. If I'm roleplaying the hero and I see a woman being dragged off by bandits, I would go save her right then. If I choose to go pick some flowers, maybe stop off for a beer at the pub and rest for 8 hours to get my spells back, that's a decision I made. I shouldn't be able to go back to find them still dragging her through the woods. It just completely ruins immersion for me when the world is obviously waiting for me to do anything at all.

 

After you save her (assuming you want to save her), go explore. And its not like you'd lose the game if you don't save her. You'd just deal with the consequences. There could be plenty of examples where taking your time and exploring might uncover information that proves more valuable than rushing in. Maybe while you explore, you find her diary where she describes her plan to pretend to be abducted by bandits so she can live out her days with her bandit lover. So there would be parts of the game where the person rushing in would be rewarded and there would be parts where the person meticulously exploring would be rewarded.

Edited September 22, 2012 by ogrezilla

[Stun]

You're still "getting there just in the nick of time", regardless of how long you take to get there. Try again.

Says who? What kind of lousy story writing sees someone kidnapping such a high profile target (heir to the throne!) and just assassinating her a.s.a.p, instead of holding out for countless blackmaling possibilities?

 

And it doesn't matter "nick of time" isn't needed for the entire quest, branches, choice, consequence and all to play out.

[Odarbi]

 

Yeah but why should the game reward people who like that sort of gameplay and punish those who like to explore.

 

You're not going to be punished by the game, because you will be the one making the choice to explore or do the quest. You are ultimately the one who makes the call, the game isn't going to force you.

[ogrezilla]

You're still "getting there just in the nick of time", regardless of how long you take to get there. Try again.

Says who? What kind of lousy story writing sees someone kidnapping such a high profile target (heir to the throne!) and just assassinating her a.s.a.p, instead of holding out for countless blackmaling possibilities?

 

And it doesn't matter "nick of time" isn't needed for the entire quest, branches, choice, consequence and all to play out.

my problem with your example is that it seems like it eliminates failure as an option. Unless I'm missing something.

Edited September 22, 2012 by ogrezilla

[Torgamous]

Since Urgency isn't needed at all for such a quest to play out exactly as you're describing

 

Oh, Is the assassination supposed to fail because the player said "Yes, I'll prevent it" and get there, only to find out they arrived too late anyway?

LOL Ok, Lets walk through this scenario.

 

1)Elven king's princess daughter gets kidnapped.

2)Elven king Hires you to free her. Marks the bandit group's hideout on your map

3)You go to the bandit hideout.

4)Bandit leader approaches you, tries to talk you into allowing them to assassinate her in exchange for [insert incentive/reward here]

5)You now have a choice. Side with the bandits and Allow the Elven princess to be assassinated -or- Side with the King and say NO and wipe out the entire bandit gang.

 

The quest then branches out according to the choice you made in #5.

 

No timer needed.

That can happen if there's enforced urgency, you know. The only difference is that this is also an available option:

(slightly altered because kidnapping someone and then assassinating them is idiotic, and asking permission to kill a captive doubly so)

1)Elven king's princess daughter gets kidnapped.

2)Elven king Hires you to free her. Marks the bandit group's hideout on your map.

3)You run to the capitol because you think working your way to the top of the Thieves' Guild sounds more interesting.

4)You write the next great Argonian novel.

5)You go to the bandit hideout.

6)The bandits sold her to Count McEvil while you were screwing around.

7)You go to Count McEvil's estate

8)Count McEvil approaches you, tries to talk you into allowing them to keep her in exchange for [insert incentive/reward here]

9)You now have a choice. Side with Count McEvil and Allow the Elven princess to work for a living -or- Side with the King and say NO and wipe out the whole estate, freeing the rest of the slaves as a nice side effect.

 

Not feeling very pressured there. I just think it would be nice if the game didn't pretend that you hadn't taken that detour to become faction head. Why should the bandits only ever sell people into slavery when I make an explicit decision to let them?

Edited September 22, 2012 by Torgamous