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

[Odarbi]

Try and explain how a TIME BASED SUCCESS/FAILURE might work purely through a NARRATIVE style.

Why in the world would I waste my time explaining how a feature I dislike can work?

 

The point is that you can't descibe a time based success/failure purely through the narrative style without using a concept such as time. Your argument that such things can be done purely without timers falls flat because of this.

[Stun]

Which brings us right back to what we just got done discussing: the redundancy of the timer. Having something different happen if you don't rescue the princess".... can be done without one.

That's a different something different, though. Choosing to side with bandits versus not getting to the bandits before they do their banditry are unlikely to have the same ramifications.

Again, says who?

 

So basically the only benefit of a timer is the sense of "urgency" or the illusion that the world moves on without your input, even though that elf maiden actually doesn't get kiddnapped in the first place unless you actually spoke to the king and got the quest, or clicked on the notice board and got the quest, or overheard the town crier and got the quest....

There's also no one telling me that the princess is in need of urgent assistance before I talk to the quest-giver. There's no narrative urgency for the game to support.

Correct. In other words, events are still centered around the player, instead of occuring regardless of the player. So again, what does a timer bring to the equation besides a sense of urgency... which decent writing should already cover?

Edited September 22, 2012 by Stun

[Odarbi]

Correct. In other words, events are still centered around the player, instead of occuring regardless of the player. So again, what does a timer bring to the equation besides a sense of urgency... which decent writing should already cover?

 

The risk of failure if you waste too much time instead of dealing with it when you hear about it.

[ogrezilla]

 

Correct. In other words, events are still centered around the player, instead of occuring regardless of the player. So again, what does a timer bring to the equation besides a sense of urgency which decent writing should already cover?

 

it brings the possibility of outcomes that you just can't come to through direct narrative. The bandits could have already sold her to someone else. You wanted to save her, but failed to because she is already gone.

Edited September 22, 2012 by ogrezilla

[Stun]

Correct. In other words, events are still centered around the player, instead of occuring regardless of the player. So again, what does a timer bring to the equation besides a sense of urgency... which decent writing should already cover?

 

The risk of failure if you waste too much time instead of dealing with it when you hear about it.

As opposed to the risk of failure if you do the quest wrong, or aren't careful during a violent rescue attempt.

 

Yeah, not a very notable difference in the grand scheme of things. I'll take the latter, as it can at least delve into moral choice-consequence, which I rank a little bit higher than simplistic time management issues.

Edited September 22, 2012 by Stun

[ogrezilla]

Correct. In other words, events are still centered around the player, instead of occuring regardless of the player. So again, what does a timer bring to the equation besides a sense of urgency... which decent writing should already cover?

 

The risk of failure if you waste too much time instead of dealing with it when you hear about it.

As opposed to the risk of failure if you do the quest wrong, or aren't careful during a violent rescue attempt.

 

Yeah, not a very notable difference in the grand scheme of things. I'll take the latter, as it can delve into moral choice-consequence, which I rank significantly higher than simplistic time management issues.

 

How isn't it a moral choice? I can make decisions without having a dialogue box to choose options. Choosing to go shopping for potions and drinking at the pub are both choices you made. That's essentially you choosing "Meh, she can wait."

Edited September 22, 2012 by ogrezilla

[Torgamous]

Which brings us right back to what we just got done discussing: the redundancy of the timer. Having something different happen if you don't rescue the princess".... can be done without one.

That's a different something different, though. Choosing to side with bandits versus not getting to the bandits before they do their banditry are unlikely to have the same ramifications.

Again, says who?

...Really? Do I need to provide a peer-reviewed psychology text showing that kings treat people who help kill their daughters differently from people who try to help and fail, and both differently from those who just go off and do their own thing?

 

 

So basically the only benefit of a timer is the sense of "urgency" or the illusion that the world moves on without your input, even though that elf maiden actually doesn't get kiddnapped in the first place unless you actually spoke to the king and got the quest, or clicked on the notice board and got the quest, or overheard the town crier and got the quest....

There's also no one telling me that the princess is in need of urgent assistance before I talk to the quest-giver. There's no narrative urgency for the game to support.

Correct. In other words, events are still centered around the player, instead of occuring regardless of the player. So again, what does a timer bring to the equation besides a sense of urgency which decent writing should already cover?

You keep bringing up decent writing as if that should be enough on its own, without any reinforcement from the actual game. That is Not How It Works. Imagine, if you will, that Obsidian had had everyone in the Mojave tell you all about how terrifying and dangerous Deathclaws are. The descriptions were masterfully written, works of art even without context. And then the first time one pops up you discover that they do less damage than a housecat. Would you have been as cautious around them?

 

As opposed to the risk of failure if you do the quest wrong, or aren't careful during a violent rescue attempt.

Not "as opposed to". I don't think anyone here is advocating that tossing a giant AOE spell right next to a hostage shouldn't have negative consequences.

Edited September 22, 2012 by Torgamous

[Odarbi]

Correct. In other words, events are still centered around the player, instead of occuring regardless of the player. So again, what does a timer bring to the equation besides a sense of urgency... which decent writing should already cover?

 

The risk of failure if you waste too much time instead of dealing with it when you hear about it.

As opposed to the risk of failure if you do the quest wrong, or aren't careful during a violent rescue attempt.

 

Yeah, not a very notable difference in the grand scheme of things. I'll take the latter, as it can at least delve into moral choice-consequence, which I rank a little bit higher than simplistic time management issues.

 

You mean delve into the moral choice-consequence such as "Do I stop my current quest to go save this elf princess, or leave her and risk her being sold off to slavers"?

Yeah, I can see your point where time doesn't have a moral choice oh wait that's a moral choice right there.

 

Try again.

[Stun]

Correct. In other words, events are still centered around the player, instead of occuring regardless of the player. So again, what does a timer bring to the equation besides a sense of urgency... which decent writing should already cover?

 

The risk of failure if you waste too much time instead of dealing with it when you hear about it.

As opposed to the risk of failure if you do the quest wrong, or aren't careful during a violent rescue attempt.

 

Yeah, not a very notable difference in the grand scheme of things. I'll take the latter, as it can delve into moral choice-consequence, which I rank significantly higher than simplistic time management issues.

 

How isn't it a moral choice? I can make decisions without having a dialogue box to choose options. Choosing to go shopping for potions and drinking at the pub are both choices you made. That's essentially you choosing "Meh, she can wait."

And here I thought you all weren't in favor of a system so strict as to not allow you to run to the nearest shop/tavern before setting out on the "beat the clock!" quest.

 

But whatever, there's a huge difference, from a moral standpoint, between dragging your feet/apathy, and siding with the killers

[Torgamous]

But whatever, there's a huge difference, from a moral standpoint, between dragging your feet/apathy, and siding with the killers

Exactly. That's why we should be able to make that choice.

Edited September 22, 2012 by Torgamous

[Odarbi]

But whatever, there's a huge difference, from a moral standpoint, between dragging your feet/apathy, and siding with the killers

 

Dragging your feet/apathy failure? You mean like.... waiting around too long so you end up failing the quest because of time?

[ogrezilla]

 

 

But whatever, there's a huge difference, from a moral standpoint, between dragging your feet/apathy, and siding with the killers

indeed. and they should have different consequences. that's pretty much our point.

[Stun]

As opposed to the risk of failure if you do the quest wrong, or aren't careful during a violent rescue attempt.

 

Yeah, not a very notable difference in the grand scheme of things. I'll take the latter, as it can at least delve into moral choice-consequence, which I rank a little bit higher than simplistic time management issues.

 

You mean delve into the moral choice-consequence such as "Do I stop my current quest to go save this elf princess, or leave her and risk her being sold off to slavers"?

Yeah, I can see your point where time doesn't have a moral choice oh wait that's a moral choice right there.

 

Try again.

No, that's a time management choice. Maybe its your turn to stop splitting hairs.

 

 

PS:

Dragging your feet/apathy failure? You mean like.... waiting around too long so you end up failing the quest because of time?

No, I mean getting sidetracked and missing the deadline by 30 seconds. Timers are timers, and that is their nature. If a human is added to allow for "close enough", then you can no longer call it a timed event.

Edited September 22, 2012 by Stun

[Shevek]

One wants to find ways to make an immersive world. I can understand why some would turn to these kind of timed events for that. What you folks fail to understand, is that this is totally unfun for the player. Timed quests are generally unpopular. Mass Effect 3 did it and the first thing most people I know did is look up the proper sequence to complete the quests so that I could get all done with no penalty. At that point, immersion is gone. The game becomes a checklist where you look up an order and starting checking off tasks one at a time.

 

This is a bad idea.

 

Lets keep things in perspective: I can remember no major timed quests in the IE games. The poisoned Harper guy in BG2 is the only exception that comes to mind and that was a minor sidequest that you had to TRY to fail. Yet, we are all here for a game that pays homage to those games. You folks are championing placing an unpopular mechanic into a game that is suppose to be a love letter to other games that largely didn't have this mechanic to fix a problem that doesn't exist.

 

The internet is a funny place.

[Odarbi]

One wants to find ways to make an immersive world. I can understand why some would turn to these kind of timed events for that. What you folks fail to understand, is that this is totally unfun for the player. Timed quests are generally unpopular. Mass Effect 3 did it and the first thing most people I know did is look up the proper sequence to complete the quests so that I could get all done with no penalty. At that point, immersion is gone. The game becomes a checklist where you look up an order and starting checking off tasks one at a time.

 

This is a bad idea.

 

I disagree, I find timed quests totally fun for the player.

[Stun]

One wants to find ways to make an immersive world. I can understand why some would turn to these kind of timed events for that. What you folks fail to understand, is that this is totally unfun for the player. Timed quests are generally unpopular. Mass Effect 3 did it and the first thing most people I know did is look up the proper sequence to complete the quests so that I could get all done with no penalty. At that point, immersion is gone. The game becomes a checklist where you look up an order and starting checking off tasks one at a time.

 

This is a bad idea.

 

I disagree, I find timed quests totally fun for the player. ME

Fixed. Speak for yourself.

Edited September 22, 2012 by Stun

[ogrezilla]

if the game is written so you don't have obvious situations where its a problem, I'm fine if they aren't there. But I don't want to hear about impending doom that will never actually happen. Don't let these urgent situations come up in the storytelling and then refuse to include the gameplay mechanics to support them. Its so bad for immersion to hear how much you need to hurry only to then have the time to dilly dally around town and do whatever you want. Let the gameplay mechanics and the storytelling work together.

Edited September 22, 2012 by ogrezilla

[Odarbi]

As opposed to the risk of failure if you do the quest wrong, or aren't careful during a violent rescue attempt.

 

Yeah, not a very notable difference in the grand scheme of things. I'll take the latter, as it can at least delve into moral choice-consequence, which I rank a little bit higher than simplistic time management issues.

 

You mean delve into the moral choice-consequence such as "Do I stop my current quest to go save this elf princess, or leave her and risk her being sold off to slavers"?

Yeah, I can see your point where time doesn't have a moral choice oh wait that's a moral choice right there.

 

Try again.

No, that's a time management choice. Maybe its your turn to stop splitting hairs.

 

 

PS:

Dragging your feet/apathy failure? You mean like.... waiting around too long so you end up failing the quest because of time?

No, I mean getting sidetracked and missing the deadline by 30 seconds. Timers are timers, and that is their nature. If a human is added to allow for "close enough", then you can no longer call it a timed event.

 

Time management and moral choices can go hand in hand, they aren't mutually exclusive.

Also, if you get sidetracked and missed the deadline, you made the choice to get side tracked that ended in your failure.

 

You've still made no successful arguments against timed quests.

[Shevek]

The onus is not on folks to make successful arguments AGAINST timed quests (though many have been made).

 

Here is the break down:

1. One needs to prove timed events are necessary or at the very least a worthwhile addition. As of yet, the need for this mechanic has not been demonstrated. If anything folks have established that a sense of urgency can exist without the mechanic. Rather than respond to this, proponents of timed quests have responded with sophistry.

 

2. One needs to explain how the games that Project Eternity is attempting to hearken back to were somehow inferior products due to lacking this mechanic. Again, this has not been established. If anything, the opposite is true. We are here because those games were immersive not because of otherwise.

 

Frankly, this thread is illogical.

Edited September 22, 2012 by Shevek

[ogrezilla]

The onus is not on folks to make successful arguments AGAINST timed quests (though many have been made).

 

Here is the break down:

1. One needs to prove timed events are necessary or at the very least a worthwhile addition. As of yet, the need for this mechanic has not been demonstrated. If anything folks have established that a sense of urgency can exist without the mechanic. Rather than respond to this, proponents of timed quests have responded with sophistry.

 

2. One needs to explain how the games that Project Eternity is attempting to hearken back to were somehow inferior products due to lacking this mechanic. Again, this has not been established. If anything, the opposite is true. We are here because those games were immersive not because of otherwise.

 

Frankly, this thread is illogical.

 

its not necessary. It just adds more possible outcomes to a scenario. it can also improve the connection between storytelling and gameplay.

 

and as a whole, the old IE games are certainly not inferior products. But there are plenty of times when I felt like immersion was sacrificed because the imminent threats never actually felt remotely imminent. I knew I could wander around town all day if I wanted to. It wasn't enough to make them bad games certainly. But it is something I would consider a flaw.

Edited September 22, 2012 by ogrezilla

[Torgamous]

No, that's a time management choice. Maybe its your turn to stop splitting hairs.

 

there's a huge difference, from a moral standpoint, between dragging your feet/apathy, and siding with the killers

[Odarbi]

The onus is not on folks to make successful arguments AGAINST timed quests (though many have been made).

 

Here is the break down:

1. One needs to prove timed events are necessary or at the very least a worthwhile addition. As of yet, the need for this mechanic has not been demonstrated. If anything folks have established that a sense of urgency can exist without the mechanic. Rather than respond to this, proponents of timed quests have responded with sophistry.

 

2. One needs to explain how the games that Project Eternity is attempting to hearken back to were somehow inferior products due to lacking this mechanic. Again, this has not been established. If anything, the opposite is true. We are here because those games were immersive not because of otherwise.

 

Frankly, this thread is illogical.

 

1: We've made plenty of arguments of why this is a worthwhile addition to the game. Addition of time will make quests more dynamic, adding more options to the game than dialogue itself can, and adding a possibility of failure for things outside of combat and dialogue. That you dismiss them because you don't like them does not make them invalid. All of the counter arguments are simply "I find it inconvenient", which is hardly an argument against something and more a statement of preference.

 

2: We don't need to prove they were inferior at all, as we're talking about an addition to a game. Adding to something does not in any way mean the predecessors were flawed... although they did have their flaws. Lack of time affecting the game world being one of them.

Edited September 22, 2012 by Odarbi

[Stun]

Time management and moral choices can go hand in hand, they aren't mutually exclusive.

They are, however, unrelated.

 

 

Also, if you get sidetracked and missed the deadline, you made the choice to get side tracked that ended in your failure.

Or the game forced it, with an encounter/ambush along the way, which you couldn't avoid.

 

You've still made no successful arguments against timed quests.

I think I made a rather good one on the last thread: Planescape Torment didn't have them, therefore they're not needed for a masterpiece.

 

I'm only half serious about that, btw, as I tend to be when trying to counter someone's meaningless personal opinion.

Edited September 22, 2012 by Stun

[Shevek]

1: We've made plenty of arguments of why this is a worthwhile addition to the game. Addition of time will make quests more dynamic, adding more options to the game than dialogue itself can, and adding a possibility of failure for things outside of combat and dialogue. That you dismiss them because you don't like them does not make them invalid. All of the counter arguments are simply "I find it inconvenient", which is hardly an argument against something and more a statement of preference.

 

2: We don't need to prove they were inferior at all, as we're talking about an addition to a game. Adding to something does not in any way mean the predecessors were flawed

 

So, this is where we stand:

 

1. Timed Quests are NOT necesarry for immersion. A sense of urgency CAN exist without them. This is by YOUR admission. They just ARGUABLY add additional options according to supporters of them.

 

2. The original games were NOT flawed for failing to have timed quests. Therefore, the lack of timed quests is NOT a flaw. So, adding them is a fix for a problem that DOES NOT exist.

 

So, lets get this straight here, you wanna put something in that you ADMIT is totally unnecessary and this thread has already proven to be AT LEAST moderately unpopular for... what? Mild gains in immersion? A few added quest options?

 

I think I'll pass.

Edited September 22, 2012 by Shevek

[ogrezilla]

So, this is where we stand:

 

1. Timed Quests are NOT necesarry for immersion. A sense of urgency CAN exist without them. This is by YOUR admission. They just ARGUABLY add additional options according to supporters of them.

 

2. The original games were NOT flawed for failing to have timed quests. Therefore, the lack of timed quests is NOT a flaw. So, adding them is a fix for a problem that DOES NOT exist.

 

So, lets get this straight here, you wanna put something in that you ADMIT is totally unnecessary and this thread has already proven to be AT LEAST moderately unpopular for... what? Mild gains in immersion? A few added quest options?

 

I think I'll pass.

 

That's NOT what I SAID. Well, 1 is pretty accurate. But 2 is just not what I said. I actually used the word flaw in my post. I guess the lack of timed quests isn't the issue as much as the writing that implies a critical time component to quests that is never enforced. I just want the storytelling and gameplay to be on the same page.

 

seriously though, whats with the CAPS?

 

edit: you may not have been responding to mine. if not, my bad.

Edited September 22, 2012 by ogrezilla