Should P:E have time limits?

[Death Machine Miyagi]

For the most part, CRPGs seem to have realized the frustration that comes with imposed time limits. Being told you have to find the water chip in x amount of days means that casual exploration is curbed. If you just explore at your leisure and ignore the ticking timer, you get a game over and have to start over. This is annoying.

 

Nowadays, when someone gives you a quest, telling you to 'Please hurry or all is lost!', you can usually rest easy that this amounts in practice to 'go run around doing random stuff for a few months, if you want. We'll still be here when you get back.' BG2 was an especially extreme offender, what with Irenicus laying waste to that Elven city while you supposedly slowly die from lack of a soul and everything. Come back a year later, if you like. He'll still be laying waste to the Elven city and you'll still be fine without your soul. This is stupid.

 

In short, both extremes of the issue strike me as bad. One curbs your ability to casually explore and the other severely undermines the credibility of whatever danger you're facing.

 

Is there a balance? Do you want time limits at all, or would you just rather keep with the current theme of 'nothing happens until your character starts pursuing the quest'? If you do find value in time limits, where do you want them and how should they be used and so forth?

[Ieo]

I have this very (very) vague memory from Vengeance of Excalibur where you generally had a lot of time to explore and do your own thing, but after a while, the enemy armies would slowly advance and take over the map if you weren't looking. This doesn't fit the PE world, though.

 

There were smaller time limits in BG2--only a day or two of in-game time, then go meet the NPC in the tavern, that kind of thing. Those are manageable. Larger scale may be harder to manage both on the player side and technically unless an in-game calendar was implemented and not just clock. I'm not opposed to the idea, though, just wondering what the technical implementation would be like.

[Agelastos]

Maybe for some side-quests. But you should get days or weeks (in-game time), not minutes like in some more action-oriented games. Definitely not for the main quest.

Edited November 14, 2012 by Agelastos

[Osvir]

Some time limits for side-quests and/or maybe once (at most twice) for a plot event.

 

If a quest says "Please hurry!" in the sense that I have little time, that if I don't go about and do the quest I'll fail it (not necessarily the end of the world and I have to restart the game or reload the game). It'd be cool with some quests that you can fail, whether it is because of time ran out or because I just simply failed it.

 

Something I said early on when I just had joined the forums was "Mounts would be fun", no not in-game mounts on-screen, but on the world map making you travel faster (instead of "Your journey took 8 hours" it could be "Your journey took 4 hours"), if there is no reason for you to travel faster (e.g., time based events) the mounts would be pretty much pointless. The other way around, with only time based events something getting you there faster isn't a necessity, but it'd be easier to manage (mechanically, for the Player) if he/she could travel the world faster.

 

If a quest ends in 6 in-game hours and I know it takes 8 hours to travel there I'll just drop it, unless of course mounts in that fashion^

[Sacred_Path]

There should be some timed quests, absolutely. Exploration can be curbed, yes, but it can also depend on your skill, which is a very good thing. If you employ solid strategies and manage your party well, you will need to rest less frequently and thereby save time. That's an excellent thing in and of itself. This also makes you more careful as to when you cast spells and how many of them, instead of spamming magic missiles ad nauseum until you need to rest.

Edited November 14, 2012 by Sacred_Path

[Death Machine Miyagi]

I have this very (very) vague memory from Vengeance of Excalibur where you generally had a lot of time to explore and do your own thing, but after a while, the enemy armies would slowly advance and take over the map if you weren't looking. This doesn't fit the PE world, though.

 

This was ages and ages ago, but I actually really liked the time limit in Star Control II. Like in your example, you had plenty of time before the Ur-Quan civil war ended in Kohr-Ah victory, and you could delay that victory significantly if you played your cards right....but once the Kohr-Ah won, the death march would begin. They would begin going from world to world exterminating all life in their path. You could still win while they were doing so, and in fact it became easier with the little time you had left because you no longer had to figure out how to deal with the exterminated races and instead could just go to their planets and grab what you needed from the blasted ruins.

 

But once the Kohr-Ah reach earth...game over.

 

A time limit, well telegraphed and with plenty of room for exploration, which you can prolong if you need to do so, and which still allows room for victory even at proverbial 11 to midnight. That's an example of a time limit I don't mind.

[Ieo]

Actually, to add--

 

There are quest versus campaign time issues. OP is talking about major campaigns, not a quest-by-quest basis. I think quests are manageable, but they must be a minority of quests unless the quest journal plus game clock/calendar is very robust to help the player take notes. But once we get into the longer scale of a campaign, the devs have to look at the big picture--you want to encourage players to play more content outside just the main campaign, for example. And that of course would require more game time.

 

In this respect, I think the only way around it is to write the main narrative to not require a particular time measure or give that feeling of "war is happening over there, hurry!" You can measure a campaign outcome by number of quests done along the way (Mass Effect 2 I think). There is the gating chapter quest, of course, which is easiest to implement. I'm sure there are other ways to do this...

 

 

Edit:

A time limit, well telegraphed and with plenty of room for exploration, which you can prolong if you need to do so, and which still allows room for victory even at proverbial 11 to midnight. That's an example of a time limit I don't mind.

 

I don't expect the main PE campaign to be one based on war or conquest at all but rather self exploration--there can be, however, timed mini-campaigns related to the factions with a similar design to the above mentioned.

Edited November 14, 2012 by Ieo

[motorizer]

I dont think it needs time limits as such....but if you go into a dungeon to rescue someone...you shouldn't be able to piss off out to the shops halfway through and expect them to still be there when you get back

I wouldn't mind time limits on individual quests, but not on the main quest please

[JWestfall]

For the main quest line, I think timed (as in, too late = fail) should be out, for obvious reasons. A cyclic time limit would be fine, e.g. get the ship plans from town before the shadowlord arrives - otherwise you need to wait until the next moon phase for the shadowlord to leave. Some non-critical sidequests could certainly be timed.

 

In essence, IMO a time limit should not determine gross success or failure, but if there is a real (or apparent) partial failure related to missing the mark it could add to the plot movement or tension.

[High Octane 881]

This is a concept that I go back and forth on. The game that pressed this issue that is most memorable for me is Daggerfall. I like the idea in theory as it provides a sense of urgency that certainly helps with immersion but definitely think it should be used sparringly particularly with the main storyline. Nothing frustrates me more than being rushed on to the next portion of a main quest not knowing that the side quests I had intended on pursuing further would no longer be accessible. It's a balancing act.

[JFSOCC]

no time limits for me, thank you. I take my sweet time playing.

[JWestfall]

In this respect, I think the only way around it is to write the main narrative to not require a particular time measure or give that feeling of "war is happening over there, hurry!"

 

Yes, for the main quest line, I think it boils down to this - not writing it to conflict with the gameplay. From what I have gathered, PE is going to be exploratory in nature anyway.

[motorizer]

A main quest that is personal to your character and your party would be best IMO ...then its something you want or need to do rather than have people constantly telling you to get on with it

[Death Machine Miyagi]

I would prefer a main quest without a time limit. But here's the thing: I would prefer that main quest to be fairly clear in-game that, yes, there is no time limit. Not even an implied one.

 

The Nameless One could wander around Sigil doing whatever for as long as he pleased because his quest was a personal one. He was made into an immortal ages upon ages ago. What's a few more days or weeks of wandering to that? That approach is a far cry from the aforementioned 'Hurry up! Irenicus is killing everyone in our city and you'll die before too much longer because you have no soul!' message sent by BG2, and a far better one, regardless of whether there wasn't any time limit in practice in either case.

Edited November 14, 2012 by Death Machine Miyagi

[Ieo]

I would prefer a main quest without a time limit. But here's the thing: I would prefer that main quest to be fairly clear in-game that, yes, there is no time limit. Not even an implied one.

 

The Nameless One could wander around Sigil doing whatever for as long as he pleased because his quest was a personal one. He was made into an immortal ages upon ages ago. What's a few more days or weeks of wandering to that? That approach is a far cry from the aforementioned 'Hurry up! Irenicus is killing everyone in our city and you'll die before too much longer because you have no soul!' message sent by BG2, and a far better one, regardless of whether there wasn't any time limit in practice in either case.

 

Yeah, PS:T's main campaign got that right, and I agree that BG2's main campaign design (uh, and BG1, I guess?) was awkward in that respect. Knowing what we know about PE, though, I don't think we have to worry about this.

 

Adding a temporal expression for certain side quests or faction mini-campaigns would add flavor, otherwise--may also help with replay value if you end up having to choose one quest/outcome over another simply due to time.

[Sacred_Path]

The Nameless One could wander around Sigil doing whatever for as long as he pleased because his quest was a personal one. He was made into an immortal ages upon ages ago. What's a few more days or weeks of wandering to that? That approach is a far cry from the aforementioned 'Hurry up! Irenicus is killing everyone in our city and you'll die before too much longer because you have no soul!' message sent by BG2, and a far better one, regardless of whether there wasn't any time limit in practice in either case.

 

I liked your Star Control example (I've never played it). I think it's a good idea the situation should deteriorate at some point if you take too long.

But the other hook is that in PE, something extraordinary (possibly cataclysmic) has already happened. The consequences of this could slowly creep into other people's lives as well. It should have an effect on the world as time goes by. That wouldn't necessarily mean the main quest is timed, but it would add a dynamic to it (possibly affecting what ending you get).

[jezz555]

If there were time limits in PE I would fail every quest.

[lolaldanee]

timelimits? where they make sense: yes

see that guy drowning? rescue him NOW or not at all

but mostly i'd like to have as few time limits as possible without making the game feel "wrong"

[Hormalakh]

If time limits are added, there should be ways to complete the quest at a disadvantage and include deeper win scenarios. People would get get frustrated otherwise. For example, if you run out the time limit to save a princess, the princess dies, but you get to find out who killed her and you can end up killing them. Basically you "sort-of" win, but it is not the optimal solution.

[motorizer]

If time limits are added, there should be ways to complete the quest at a disadvantage and include deeper win scenarios. People would get get frustrated otherwise. For example, if you run out the time limit to save a princess, the princess dies, but you get to find out who killed her and you can end up killing them. Basically you "sort-of" win, but it is not the optimal solution.

 

Or you find some tavern wench, get her drunk...dress her up as the princess, deposit her in the kings castle saying she needs to rest, and take the reward and run before anybody notices :-D

Edited November 14, 2012 by motorizer

[Death Machine Miyagi]

I liked your Star Control example (I've never played it). I think it's a good idea the situation should deteriorate at some point if you take too long.

 

Not to derail my own thread, but Star Control 2 is freeware now and one of the best games ever made. Everyone should try it at least once.

[Pshaw]

A handful of time sensitive quests are good. So long as they're not also time sensitive in terms of when they're taken. If I need to take a quest right now or not at all, then it's got a timer that's just annoying. It makes me feel like my game has been hijacked. So long as they aren't also forced on me I'm ok with it. I can either take the quest and get right to it if I so choose or reload my last save and let it sit until I'm ready to take it.

[GhostofAnakin]

Instead of time limits where you have X amount of time to complete a quest or you outright fail it, I'd rather that some (not all) quests that perhaps require prompt action instead have certain consequences for any delay.

 

For instance, if someone approaches you about helping their tiny village out because they're about to be attacked by a group of bandits, if you delay you don't necessarily "fail" the quest, but instead you arrive to find that the bandits have already taken over portions of the village, and the remaining villagers are holed up in the Inn. Had you arrived early you could have helped the villagers fend off the bandits before they'd set foot in the village. Thus, consequence for your delay without you outright failing the quest if you didn't get around to it right away.

[Hassat Hunter]

I hate time-limits. Limit exploring.

 

For example, just in DX:HR... one (like me) would obviously want to explore all around the office. Result? Hostages die.

It sucks. I don't want to rush through a map...

[Jojobobo]

This is a toughie, saying implying that a quest won't inflict impending doom very very soon drains some drama from quests that the devs want to be dramatic - at the same time implying said doom and not delivering on it is also disappointing. Between the two, I'd rather do quests without implied time constraints that they don't deliver on - i.e. come and go from the main quest as you please.