Should P:E have time limits?

[freche]

They should really have time limits where it's logical to have. It's one of the most immersion breaking things to not have.

 

I'm finding a badly wounded man (he will most likely die within a day) in his hut in the wilderness. The town is a 2 hours trip from where we are and I promise to get help.

Next thing, I get side tracked and it takes me a month to get the doctor. We arrive at the mans hut and he is still there, alive & badly wounded...

 

That is just awesome !... Not.

 

If we ever want to see an RPG with what would appear to be a living world. Events and other things need to be timed.

It's ofc still just a game and supposed to be fun, but timers can be fun if they aren't made just to annoy and work against the player.

Edited December 8, 2012 by freche

[Cluas]

I am confident in the P:E team, they will not make a game without time limits

 

By the way: Terikan comes to mind. That worked really good (Yes I'm an IWD fan... )

[Michael_Galt]

Out of curiosity, has this question been answered in any way by the devs?  Haven't been paying close attention on the forums...

[Cultist]

Time limits? @#$% you!

[TrashMan]

Time is a resource. Time is a thing of great value in Real Life and something any advanturer SHOULD keep a mind on.

Especially in combat and world-changing scenarios.

 

Maybe some people want to explore the countryside and wander around. And I get it. It's nice.

But you do it when you dont' have time-sensitive quests.

 

Nothing ruins immersion more than

"Hurry! You must save us. The ogres are burning our town!"

You: Ok.

*goes off in the opposute direction, picks flowers, does some quests. Returns 2 weeks later. Town is still in one piece.*

[Messier-31]

"Hurry! You must save us. The ogres are burning our town!"

You: Ok.

"Hurry! You must save us. The ogres ar...."

You: I MUST NOT!

 

*snicker*

 

MEANWHILE, BACK AT THE HALL OF JUSTICE...

In my opinion time limits are compulsory but not for the enitre game. Some quests should have something like that, but the entire main plot (or half of it) could spoil it. Although, the limitations from Fallout 1 & 2 were kinda facile. I had no trouble in finding water-chip/GECK in time during my first playthrough, yet had tons of fun exploring. So yeah, time limitations - but with limitations - sounds good to me. Maybe there could also be some dialogue options which you should pick in a few seconds, before your interlocutor acts? Or is it too much?

[kgambit]

Time limits?

 

No.

 

No QTEs, no timed quests, no time limits to main quest line.

 

PERIOD.

[teknoman2]

urgency factor

"the village is under attack! please help!"

*you have 2 days to get there or it will be destroyed* (reasonable time limit)

*the monsters will just sit there and wait until you have time to come kill them* (improbable scenario for convinience)

no urgency factor

"im making a golem but i need some mimic's blood. if you find any i ll pay you well"

*whenever you happen to find it bring it back if you dont mind the trip* (the time you take to do it wont make a difference)

so you either make all quests in way that they lack any urgency factor, or you choose between time limit or a static world

for the main quest, it's best to keep most of it without urgency factor parts (like most main quest parts of new vegas), or give a reasonably large time margin to do it

[teknoman2]

why does the edit button disapear after a while?

since fallout and it's 180day main quest time limit was mentioned, i have to say that for that game, it was a fairly small margin, considering how long it took to move form place to place while looking for the chip and while trying to survive

[kgambit]

why does the edit button disapear after a while?

 

It's a timed quest ......... 

Edited September 12, 2013 by kgambit

[Lephys]

Time limits are fine, as long as the game provides periods of time limitlessness as well. I know that still doesn't make 100% perfectly realistic unabstracted sense, but it works 1,000 times better for the game. If it weren't a game (or it weren't an RPG), then you could easily have a continuous flow of time with no problems; the whole game could be time-based challenges/missions. There are plenty of games set up like that. But, again, they aren't RPGs, with branches and branches and branches of time-consuming options at every turn.

 

Especially if the main story's time-sensitive, and it's always effectively ticking away, you're going to inevitably run into a point at which you must choose between doing cool, exploration-based optional things (that were put in the game because they're meant to be done), OR not-lose the game (a la Fallout's water chip timer). Granted, you could always just make sure the time limits are lenient enough so that you can do a bunch of extra stuff. But, then, doesn't that sort of defeat the purpose of the urgency they're creating? "Well, I guess we'll sacrifice some urgency so that you can explore those ruins... So, if you DON'T explore the ruins, there's no urgency at all, and if you DO, there's a decent bit." But then, you'd have to re-structure everything so that you didn't actually KNOW the time limit for a given quest/situation until you'd already done some exploring and side stuff. Otherwise, it'd be "Oh no, in TWO WEEKS, something bad's going to happen!"

 

That's what didn't make much sense in BG, with the whole Dynaheir rescue. Minsc's all "Guys! My sweet, sweet Dynaheir's in trouble! And I'm SO worried about her that I'm going to urge you INTENSELY to do something about it... in the next few weeks!"

 

At that point, it's not urgency. I don't feel like she's actually in any danger. I feel like the game's just being annoying, at that point. "Well, you actually have plenty of time to do lots of other stuff, and the game even kind of expects you to level up a bit to be able to take out all the Kobolds in that stronghold. But, eventually, you're going to have to go do it, or bad things will happen!" It just feels like an arbitrary challenge, then. Like for an achievement or something. "Rescue Dynaheir in under 2 weeks! 8D!"

 

Much more localized time limits are probably the way to go. Like "We only have until the ceremony tomorrow to figure out what's going on here," or "If the child's just gone missing, then we might be able to catch up to the kidnappers and save her, if we hurry." Things that need immediate attention. OR, things like "The church is on fire, and the townsfolk are inside! We've got to get to it as quickly as possible!", with an actual, ticking timer. That kind of thing can require urgency in combat over take-your-time tactics. Especially in a real-time game versus a turn-based. Use all your potions you've been saving, pull all the stops, and get to that church. The longer you take, the worse the situation will get, until there's no one left alive inside. It would be a little tricky to balance that time limit, sure. But, it's still do-able.

 

That, and as I've advocated before, the time-passing-relative-to-quests/events thing. With this, yes, if you just traipse through the woods, or sleep in an inn 700 times in a row, you generate an inconsistency (because that suggests 700 nights having passed, but, in game world time, time is basically at a stand still). But, you almost have to go out of your way to do that. Besides, all "time-sensitive" stuff would pass time, whereas, as long as you didn't have an immediate time-sensitive situation (as exampled in the above paragraph), you could partake in as much non-time-sensitive exploration and such that was available to you at the time. Of course, you can still be leisurely exploring, and stumble into something that's significant enough to pass time again.

 

It's the way it was done in the Mass Effect games. Things didn't really progress, in the world around you, until you did. Even if it wasn't in main missions, etc, and it was just side stuff... Until you actually partook in a significant enough event, you could fly around between places all day long and no time would actually pass in the game world. But, you go explore a planet and come back, and now it's assumed at least several hours (or perhaps a few days... space-travel context makes relative travel times a bit different than medieval fantasy RPG context) have passed, and people contextually speak about what has transpired either IN your exploration of that planet, or what has happened during.

 

It pretty much feels like quite-consistent time handling, while not punishing the player for having to heal a few more times, or not undergoing travel in the most efficient manner ever just to prevent too much time from passing and content from going neglected and updating itself negatively.

 

The significance of situations/events in an RPG lies in how you handle them with the tools at hand. So, there's not really any sense in allowing entire situations and events to be "scheduled" and missable all in the name of adhering to realistic time-passage for the duration of the game.

 

Imagine if, in Fallout, you hadn't even been told about the water chip in the first place, but it was still going to go out shortly after you left, and the vault was still going to run out of purified water in a set amount of time. What would be the point? What good is a narrative if it's just a dice roll as to whether or not you're actually a factor in it? "Oh, you happened to stumble upon this situation not before or after, but WHILE it was underway? Great! Then you get to possibly handle it! ^_^"

[kgambit]

Especially if the main story's time-sensitive, and it's always effectively ticking away, you're going to inevitably run into a point at which you must choose between doing cool, exploration-based optional things (that were put in the game because they're meant to be done), OR not-lose the game (a la Fallout's water chip timer). Granted, you could always just make sure the time limits are lenient enough so that you can do a bunch of extra stuff. But, then, doesn't that sort of defeat the purpose of the urgency they're creating? "W

.snip.

 

Imagine if, in Fallout, you hadn't even been told about the water chip in the first place, but it was still going to go out shortly after you left, and the vault was still going to run out of purified water in a set amount of time. What would be the point? What good is a narrative if it's just a dice roll as to whether or not you're actually a factor in it? "Oh, you happened to stumble upon this situation not before or after, but WHILE it was underway? Great! Then you get to possibly handle it! ^_^"

 

True but in fairness, I never felt any urgency in retrieving the water chip in Fallout and I don't even recall knowing about the time limit.  Not the 150 day water chip time limit (that was extendable by another 100 days if you made the right choice)  or the mutant attack timers for various locations (including the 400 or 500 day timer for the mutant attack at vault 13).  Although those timers ultimately affected your ending, there was no indication that any of them were in effect (iirc) or the consequences for failing them.  Sense of Urgency = 0. 

In fact, I believe that a couple of the area dependent timers were designed in and then subsequently cut from the original release version.

 

Disclaimer:  It has been a long time since I played Fallout so my memory might be a bit shaky. 

 

I agree that quests could be set up properly so that a timer might make sense.  My dislike for them is not from a belief that they can not be designed properly    I simply do not agree that installing an artificial sense of urgency on a single quest or two really is going to add anything to making the game more immersive.  As you said, if you make the time constraints too loose, then there's no point in having them at all.  And making them too severe is punitive imo.  

 

Disclaimer 2: QTEs excepted of course - I simply do not like them - at all.

 

If the designers opt to make multiple quests time dependent, then the obvious game play workaround for players is to trigger each time dependent quest independently.  Then there are no time conflicts since hopefully the designers have allowed sufficient time to complete each quest. 

 

I could be convinced otherwise but I just don't see the value of timed quests.

Edited September 16, 2013 by kgambit

[Kjaamor]

Just make it an option when you start a new game.

[Lephys]

True but in fairness, I never felt any urgency in retrieving the water chip in Fallout and I don't even recall knowing about the time limit.  Not the 150 day water chip time limit (that was extendable by another 100 days if you made the right choice)  or the mutant attack timers for various locations (including the 400 or 500 day timer for the mutant attack at vault 13).  Although those timers ultimately affected your ending, there was no indication that any of them were in effect (iirc) or the consequences for failing them.  Sense of Urgency = 0. 

This is a fair point against the quoted section specifically regarding the water chip stuff, but, for what it's worth, I actually was trying to make this very same point when talking about the Dynaheir quest in BG. . (I was making a very specific different point when citing the water chip chest timer... sorry for the confusion). I think if a time limit's that broad, it doesn't really generate urgency. And, since everything in the game is created from nothing, you end up making sure that you set the time limit far enough to be able to do whatever you want. But then, people who drag their feet a bit, for whatever reason (maybe, despite their best efforts, they simply aren't as efficient at completing all the tasks and stuff as other people?) get screwed a bit.

 

Whereas, if you tell someone, short-term, when it's relevant, "Hey, we probably really need to do something about THIS situation right now, or it's going to worsen or progress without our intervention to whatever end," they feel the weight of a decision of urgency. OR, like I said, if someone says "They're not going to last very long in that church! Haste is our priority!," then actually have a time limit for when people holed up in the church of this assaulted settlement start dying, you've also got urgency. (Granted, you've got to make it pretty clear, however you do it, that "We can't dilly around here!" isn't just flavor text, and that time is ACTUALLY functionally passing, as far as the situation's outcome is concerned).

 

But, I think there's almost no reason for over-arching "You literally only have this much time, as a resource in the game world, for a whole playthrough, and it's constantly ticking," because it almost never works like you want it to. Again, in a book or a story, purely, it works, but then... the whole thing's written to only go one way, and the time limit always affects things in precisely the way you want it to.

[rjshae]

I'd be okay with a time limit to obtain a unique item in an allotted interval. Something where there's a positive loss rather than a negative gain.

[kgambit]

 

True but in fairness, I never felt any urgency in retrieving the water chip in Fallout and I don't even recall knowing about the time limit.  Not the 150 day water chip time limit (that was extendable by another 100 days if you made the right choice)  or the mutant attack timers for various locations (including the 400 or 500 day timer for the mutant attack at vault 13).  Although those timers ultimately affected your ending, there was no indication that any of them were in effect (iirc) or the consequences for failing them.  Sense of Urgency = 0. 

This is a fair point against the quoted section specifically regarding the water chip stuff, but, for what it's worth, I actually was trying to make this very same point when talking about the Dynaheir quest in BG. . (I was making a very specific different point when citing the water chip chest timer... sorry for the confusion). I think if a time limit's that broad, it doesn't really generate urgency. And, since everything in the game is created from nothing, you end up making sure that you set the time limit far enough to be able to do whatever you want. But then, people who drag their feet a bit, for whatever reason (maybe, despite their best efforts, they simply aren't as efficient at completing all the tasks and stuff as other people?) get screwed a bit.

 

Whereas, if you tell someone, short-term, when it's relevant, "Hey, we probably really need to do something about THIS situation right now, or it's going to worsen or progress without our intervention to whatever end," they feel the weight of a decision of urgency. OR, like I said, if someone says "They're not going to last very long in that church! Haste is our priority!," then actually have a time limit for when people holed up in the church of this assaulted settlement start dying, you've also got urgency. (Granted, you've got to make it pretty clear, however you do it, that "We can't dilly around here!" isn't just flavor text, and that time is ACTUALLY functionally passing, as far as the situation's outcome is concerned).

 

But, I think there's almost no reason for over-arching "You literally only have this much time, as a resource in the game world, for a whole playthrough, and it's constantly ticking," because it almost never works like you want it to. Again, in a book or a story, purely, it works, but then... the whole thing's written to only go one way, and the time limit always affects things in precisely the way you want it to.

 

 

I definitely agree with the last point regarding an entire playthrough.  

 

As for individual timed quests, I think we both agree that the timer would probably be generous enough to prevent failure as long as the player doesn't go walkabout and avoids having multiple timed quests all active at the same time.  With judicious save game reloads, (doesn't everyone save before entering a village?) the "Ooops, three timed quests all active at the same time" scenario could be easily avoided.  So the timing aspects shouldn't present a problem. 

 

Does the church quest you presented really create a sense of urgency or just an artificial one?  I think it's more likely the latter.   I believe that the only way to create a true sense of urgency in a quest or plot line is if the consequences for failure are severe and force the player into quick action or risk some game defining consequences.  A simple, "oh please hurry and save the townspeople in the church or the ogres will eat them and you won't  get a reward" is not going to cut it for creating urgency.   That might likely elicit a "Oops too late, too bad, so sad" reaction and the party would be on their merry way.   So you have to up the stakes.

 

The more you increase the consequences for failure, the more likely it is that the quest results will interweave into the main plot.  Suddenly that simple side quest starts to take on main quest relevance and ceases to be side quest.  The success or failure of that quest starts to resemble a plot fork more than a timed quest.

It starts to look like the dilemma that will be presented in Wasteland 2.  You will be given a choice of responding to two radio distress calls and given the time constraints you can not respond to both.  The immediate consequence of that choice is that one plot branch will be totally closed off to you for the entire game.  So while the time constraints are there, that's really a plot fork. That I have no problems with.  But I think describing that situation as a "timed quest" is inaccurate.

 

 

In a different genre I can see how an imposed time limit could be a powerful game play device that reinforces terror, horror, or urgency .... (I'm thinking of mystery games here mostly).    

Edited September 17, 2013 by kgambit

[J. Trudel]

I think time and failure in games should be really different from what we use to see. Most of the time, we see an artificial sense of urgency, or we have consequence we don't want to deal with. In the false sense of urgency, we usually have quest where stakes are high, but no matter how long we wait to finish the quest, nothing happen. When we trully have time to finish something, most of the time the consequences of failing means to re-load. 

 

IMHO, both are really boring approaches. I'm about to introduce a third way. Let's say you get a quest to get an object before an ennemy group get's his hands on. Somehow, you couldn't do it in time, most game would either have you fail the quest, or even worse, you can't fail it due to time. But, if instead of having you fail the quest and reload as most gamer will do, the game present you with two different but equally interesting situations ? If you get your hands on the object before the ennemy, be prepared for some retaliation when the ennemy try to get it back directly from you. But if you fail at beat their little time game, you have to plan and get it back from them. 

 

All there is to do to implement something like that is to stop thinking iin failure means you don't get a reward and rather think. Success and failure will only create different situation, each having their own reward. 

[AGX-17]

Out of curiosity, has this question been answered in any way by the devs?  Haven't been paying close attention on the forums...

Thread about time limits. Thread necromancy a year later. I get it. Ha. Haha. Hahaha. Ha.

[Lephys]

I don't get why thread "necromancy" gets such a negative connotation. If someone simply makes a new thread about the topic, they're barraged with "OMG, we discussed this all a bunch already in THIS (link) thread! Go read all that first!". But, if they read a thread and feel like continuing the discussion on the topic in that thread (where all the previous discussion conveniently resides for reference), suddenly it's "Way to necro, bro...".

 

Is it that one shouldn't be allowed to further discuss a topic once that topic has already been discussed, then happenstancically experienced a lull in discussion? Or is it, perhaps, perfectly fine that discussion of the topic be stricken up once more, so long as people must actually locate and read a separate thread in order to catch up and avoid chastisement?

[kgambit]

I don't get why thread "necromancy" gets such a negative connotation. If someone simply makes a new thread about the topic, they're barraged with "OMG, we discussed this all a bunch already in THIS (link) thread! Go read all that first!". But, if they read a thread and feel like continuing the discussion on the topic in that thread (where all the previous discussion conveniently resides for reference), suddenly it's "Way to necro, bro...".

 

Is it that one shouldn't be allowed to further discuss a topic once that topic has already been discussed, then happenstancically experienced a lull in discussion? Or is it, perhaps, perfectly fine that discussion of the topic be stricken up once more, so long as people must actually locate and read a separate thread in order to catch up and avoid chastisement?

 

I prefer to think of it as reviving a discussion from a coma.     

[AGX-17]

I don't get why thread "necromancy" gets such a negative connotation. If someone simply makes a new thread about the topic, they're barraged with "OMG, we discussed this all a bunch already in THIS (link) thread! Go read all that first!". But, if they read a thread and feel like continuing the discussion on the topic in that thread (where all the previous discussion conveniently resides for reference), suddenly it's "Way to necro, bro...".

 

Is it that one shouldn't be allowed to further discuss a topic once that topic has already been discussed, then happenstancically experienced a lull in discussion? Or is it, perhaps, perfectly fine that discussion of the topic be stricken up once more, so long as people must actually locate and read a separate thread in order to catch up and avoid chastisement?

Given the fact that it'd been nearly a year since anyone had replied, I'd say it's also given that any decision as major as there being a time limit to the game has already been made. Considering it'd been nearly a year since the thread was left to gather dust, if someone were to make a new thread, nobody would need to "locate and read a seperate thread in order to catch up." If you want a generalized discussion of time limits in games then isn't the general game discussion section more appropriate?

 

Finally, because this is a thread about time limits pertaining to P:E, arguing the many merits of thread necromancy falls outside the purview of the topic.

 

P.S. remember Fallout?

Edited September 18, 2013 by AGX-17

[Lephys]

Thanks! I learned so many helpful facts from this:

 

1) If we're able to, in any way, deduce the probability that Obsidian's already made a decision about the topic of discussion (and that that decision is definitely set in stone) based on pure speculation, no discussion of said topic should take place.

 

2) If someone DOES want to start a new topic about something that's already been discussed a while back, it's better that the new thread potentially mimic the old thread without anyone being the wiser, since the actual review of existing discussion on the topic is pure folly.

 

3) If we feel that completely pointless discussion is going on, we should actually contribute to that discussion, ourselves, with argument against the discussion having any purpose whatsoever.

 

*scribble scribble scribble*. *click*. Got it. *closes notepad*.

 

Sorry about my ignorance of these things. Now I know, and knowing is half the battle.

[Michael_Galt]

So then, just to confirm, I take it that this HASN'T been answered in any capacity through interviews?  I get all the updates, and am pretty much positive they have never talked about time limits in them... 

[Lephys]

I don't think so, no. 8(

[moridin84]

Thanks! I learned so many helpful facts from this:

 

1) If we're able to, in any way, deduce the probability that Obsidian's already made a decision about the topic of discussion (and that that decision is definitely set in stone) based on pure speculation, no discussion of said topic should take place.

 

2) If someone DOES want to start a new topic about something that's already been discussed a while back, it's better that the new thread potentially mimic the old thread without anyone being the wiser, since the actual review of existing discussion on the topic is pure folly.

 

3) If we feel that completely pointless discussion is going on, we should actually contribute to that discussion, ourselves, with argument against the discussion having any purpose whatsoever.

 

*scribble scribble scribble*. *click*. Got it. *closes notepad*.

 

Sorry about my ignorance of these things. Now I know, and knowing is half the battle.

Threads shouldn't be necro'd because people might read the thread from the start things thinking it's a new thread. I certainly read the first 4 pages before accidently going to the last page and saw the comment about the necro. 

 

This is a (often) a waste of time for several reasons. Such as the fact that the discussion is based on out-of-date information, or that the people discussing the topic might not even have the same opinions (if they are even still around) or that the discussion may not be relevant anymore. 

 

 

A bit off topic but I think necroing threads is something to be discouraged.