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

[Stun]

Can you give me an example of, say, how timing the "retrieve the bronse sphere" quest would benefit PS:T. Or how the "Solve the Foundry Murder" quest would benefit from being timed?

They wouldn't. The execution you used as an example earlier, however, I think would have benefited from either timing or just if it noticed that you'd turned around and walked away. After all, you can't tell me that walking away from an execution isn't a clear choice regarding what you want to do about the execution.

LOL sure. I suppose it is. (But if we wanna get picky, lets keep in mind that this particular quest takes place outdoors, where a... well.... a war is going on, it's not inconceivable that your character turns around to, you know, fight back against that Glabrezu that's trying to Eat Annah. or that mage who's firing Chomatic Orbs at you from the roof.)

 

Regardless, that quest/situation itself could be timed I suppose, and it would fit fine into the game as such. But it would also be completely pointless, since that quest doesn't really require you to do anything but show up to start it and finish it in one go, which most players do, and once you show up your dialogue choices do the rest. Who needs a timer for that?

 

Do I need to drag out my Thieves' Guild example again? The urgency is that there actually is going to be something bad if you blow off the quest. It doesn't need to come from a timer on the top right telling you you only have ten minutes to save the princess, as long as the princess isn't still in the same situation after you do everything else the game has to offer.

That's not Urgency. That's just plain old consequence. And again, for the umpteeth time, a quest does not have to be timed to contain consequence for inaction. The Witcher 2's Monster contract quests aren't timed. They just simply Fail if you go on to the next chapter before completing them.

Edited September 23, 2012 by Stun

[Shadenuat]

Urgency is a great tool which makes player act on a basis of how real person would actually act - without all the soap opera or over the top drama which acts as substitute for that usually. When world shows that it can live it's own life and give or take from the player something he cared about, it just stops feel like something static or player's plaything.

As design tool, urgency with consequences should be used more often in games.

[NerdBoner]

man oh man, Stun is fervently "anti-clock"...

 

I bet you show up late for everything bro, Just to prove a point!

 

I suggest we drop it guys, I think he might hurt Feargus if there's even a hint of a timed event in Eternity. I don't want it nearly as bad as you hate it..

 

Let that little boy burn in his house for months on end, see if I care.

[duskwind]

Urgency can be implemented purely through dialogues, not timers, eg "'please help, bandits are kidnapping my brother right now!' 1) 'Quick, take me there!' 2) 'so what, not my problem'" with option 1 taking you straight into combat, and 2 meaning the kidnap goes ahead. Being forced to make important choices in dialogue without the option of going off to do other things while you think about it is very common, even if it's not presented as being about a time limit. For less immediate urgency, trigger failure upon leaving the area. Adding actual timers like "save her before the full moon" would just allow a bit more flexibility in the implementation of urgency.

[gglorious]

I'd have to side with the anti-urgency folks:

1) Clocks are just another thing that can go wrong. So, as brought up: a complicated game can have multiple game events show up around the same time, and this can really screw with a clock. You may fail the timed quest because of some bad luck on when other events happened. You may end up feeling rushed.

2) Clocks create problems when they translate across playing styles. A large segment of game players will not like being timed or rushed or forced to allocate time in a way they don't want. Some flaws will inevitably exist because of the need for broad accessibility.

3) The idea of "oh, if you fail THAT timer, another quest is generated" may work somewhat, but it allocates the time and resources to create content to something that a lot of people may not benefit from. I mean, I'd rather have more unique content than quests that can break into other quests. I mean, I know the designers will make the decisions on what they consider really cool to do and that's fair, but out of a thousand possible cool ideas, this is not one I think really matters as much as all of the other things that could be done.

4) I'm not really feeling immersion. There is always an element of absurdity to any game played, so.... I don't see this as the straw that breaks the camel's back. I mean, the very structure of most game plots is something that is deconstructed a thousand times, and mapped out into ever so many tropes that it is hard to say that I feel they are incredibly real. I mean, the "rise from nothing to godhood" kind of story arc is absurd, but delightful. The dualism of "good vs evil"(broadly) doesn't map to any reality. The games that have romances often involve a female NPC just falling in love with your PC as you passively accept their advances.They are very good narratives though, but they're still good narratives even if story-gameplay segregation occurs in a few areas. It's worth consideration to try to avoid some of these problems, but I think the loss of immersion harms those desiring this a LOT LESS than failure to properly manage timers will hurt those who tend to fail like that. You're just reducing your immersion, but you're probably immersing just fine, otherwise you wouldn't be on this forum as you would have never taken an interest. They're getting frustrated at a loss of content/having to reload to get the content they may want more.

[Dermi]

OK, I'll try one more time.

 

Having quests that can fail if not completed in given time (in-game time, NOT real world time) can add to immershun, because it creates feeling of living world. Even if it's made up, fantasy world it still has it's own rules and it needs to maintain them to be internally coherent. If, for example, game lore tells that only elves can be wizards, because they're more in tune with world and it lets them manipulate it on higher level, then you simply don't introduce dwarven wizard, only because it's cool from narrative point of view. And if you do, expect players to look at it and tell "What the f*** is this s***?! Game contradicts itself!".

The same thing goes with quest timers. It's a given that in every world there is passage of time - all IE games had day/night cycle, so they acknowledged time is passing. Now, if some quest is told to be urgent (that kidnapped maiden example, beaten to death in this thread) and yet game doesn't stick to sense of urgency created by narrative, it's a) not internally coherent and shows that world is not living but merely a sandbox for player to play in and nothing will happen without gamer's input, and b) being urgent is plain LARPing, and not role-playing, because game doesn't acknowledge in any way if player made it on time or not.

 

Also, Stun argued several times that introducing quest timers is bad, because quest starts only when player activate them, thus world is still waiting for player to happen. That's partially true, but it's a result of our technology. Game has to have limited pool of quests player can do, because no one is able to generate additional quests at will to have infinite number of them to accommodate for every possible scenario. That way we acknowledge that game is limited medium, but it doesn't have to be incoherent with it's own internal logic. So yes, it's OK to have bandits waiting with kidnapping maiden for player to start the quest, but it's not OK to have them wait for the eternity for player to come and rescue the maiden, because it just takes from the world and makes it unbelievable.

 

Also, I haven't seen anyone here arguing that time based quest should be mandatory. We're merely saying that if (and that's a big IF) there is quest or two, where sense of urgency is imposed on player through narrative, then game mechanics should adhere to it and even, yes, make player fail the quest if it takes him too long. Who said you need that perfect 100% of accomplished quests? You failed one quest out of forty? Bad luck, go back playing and deal with consequences.

 

And BTW, Stun, you also argued that Torment was a masterpiece and it didn't have time-based quests, therefore Project Eternity also doesn't need them. But Torment also didn't include elves of dwarves, yet they're confirmed to be in Eternity's world. How can you live with that? Or, what about class-specific quests? Are you OK with not having access to quest only because you're a warrior and not mage? Does it take away from your "roleplaying experience" or not?

[Stun]

Bah, I said I was only half serious about that torment comment. Obviously there's various different ways to create a masterpiece.

 

And yes, I'm totally happy with build/class exclusive quests! I advocate them to every Developer who will listen.

[Dermi]

And it's very similar in execution: it just adds another factor (class/time) to the quest that is taken into account when calculating possible outcome. It all boils down to consequence of player's actions. In first example, as a consequence of choosing specific class you have/don't have access to certain quest and it's outcome, while in the second example when you choose to have your time there also should be similar consequence modifying outcome of the quest.

In other words: you have no problem with being locked out of certain content based on class factor, but you cannot stand being locked out of certain content based on time factor, while both scenarios take place as a consequence of decision you made earlier. Is that right?

[Vandoon]

I have never wanted or enjoyed a clock on the screen. I have almost always combed 99% of the world in games and spent large amount of time on side quests. What I wanted to see was that when consequences are stated (village is going to be destroyed, person killed etc). If I choose to loiter around which through experience I do as most games fail to punish me for it the stated consequence comes to pass. I have consciously gone "it does not matter if I act now" (due to poor design) and continued going about what ever task I felt like until I was ready. I also like urgency however it is easily lost without consequences. I do like many of your ideas. Parallel missions are also great.

[Odarbi]

If we're gonna argue that the only way to fail a timed quest is to miss by 3 in-game months or some other massive number, and that by 'timed" we mean "you have a couple of game weeks to finish them", then the entire notion of such quests being timed is pointless, as there's no Urgency in a quest that gives you 2 weeks to complete, and no real importance to slapping a timer on any quest that allows for such forgiving leaway.

 

You seem to believe that urgency has to mean "Complete this quest right away". That is an incorrect assumption. Weeks of game time makes sense if you have a quest to find an item to help defend against an invading force that is due to arrive within a few weeks. Urgency is still valid given the game time of the world.

[Odarbi]

Regardless, that quest/situation itself could be timed I suppose, and it would fit fine into the game as such. But it would also be completely pointless, since that quest doesn't really require you to do anything but show up to start it and finish it in one go, which most players do, and once you show up your dialogue choices do the rest. Who needs a timer for that?

 

It wouldn't be pointless, because you've then go to decide how you handle it. Do I save the guy on the chopping block from getting the axe, or do I worry about dealing with the war. Having everything rely on a dialogue does not make the game great. Narrative can do wonderful things, but so can having time affect the game world. The fact that you're so anti-clock is what makes you miss this point, despite it having been made so many times. Stop thinking in terms of the older games, and think outside the box.

Edited September 23, 2012 by Odarbi

[Odarbi]

Urgency can be implemented purely through dialogues, not timers, eg "'please help, bandits are kidnapping my brother right now!' 1) 'Quick, take me there!' 2) 'so what, not my problem'" with option 1 taking you straight into combat, and 2 meaning the kidnap goes ahead. Being forced to make important choices in dialogue without the option of going off to do other things while you think about it is very common, even if it's not presented as being about a time limit. For less immediate urgency, trigger failure upon leaving the area. Adding actual timers like "save her before the full moon" would just allow a bit more flexibility in the implementation of urgency.

 

Which is kind of the point of timers. It adds that flexibility to urgent quest completions. Instead of being limited to a certain number of quest completions within a period by the game, or not limited at all so that you have a chance to do everything in the game and have the plot somehow magically stop because you've decided you don't want to advance it yet; you're limited by your choices, priorities, and how well you play the game.

 

How many people do you think would like being forced to drop what they're doing immediately to go stop the kidnapping? Considering the amount of people against the idea of timers in general, I'd say about half the people in this thread. Why? Because they're being forced. Because they're being whisked away by the plot instead of being able to do things in their own *time*.

 

Using time allows those people the decisions without it being a "forced" aspect by the game. I use that term lightly, because everyone in here against timers seems to be some sort of masochistic completionist that can't be happy unless they complete everything in the game in one playthrough, and yet want to be able to take all of their time ever to go explore. Timed quests and whether you complete them or not is just another level of decision making, and one made outside of dialogue. If you don't like the feeling of "racing the clock", then don't. That's your decision.

[Odarbi]

And it's very similar in execution: it just adds another factor (class/time) to the quest that is taken into account when calculating possible outcome. It all boils down to consequence of player's actions. In first example, as a consequence of choosing specific class you have/don't have access to certain quest and it's outcome, while in the second example when you choose to have your time there also should be similar consequence modifying outcome of the quest.

In other words: you have no problem with being locked out of certain content based on class factor, but you cannot stand being locked out of certain content based on time factor, while both scenarios take place as a consequence of decision you made earlier. Is that right?

 

He's also somehow perfectly okay with quest completions arbitrarily being decided on the outcome of another quest. There was someone posting something along the lines of "We could have an "urgent quest chain" where the player can only do so many of these quests before they have to go deal with something, and then the others could be completed later, despite being more difficult". Stun was all for it, saying that "Finally, someone gets it"... and yet under a timed system, you'd potentially be able to clear them all before time was up if you played smart and prioritized.

[Gibbscape_Torment]

Urgency through means that is not time based, yes. Time sensitive quests however are my most loathed game mechanic.