Should P:E have time limits?

[Archmage Silver]

I vote for no time limits - you can set those for yourself if you want to. I have to deal with deadlines in RL, so I'm not really interested in thinking about them in games.

[Dream]

For those that want time limits why not just self enforce them? If it bothers you so much that you're allowed to explore while the world is exploding (or whatever) then don't. It's a role playing game after all; play the role of someone pressed for time and let those of us who like to explore do that.

[Tarrasque Cult]

In Baldurs Gate we had a calendar, a month count, but it actually didnt matter.

 

What if we have a calendar with seasons, harvest, festivals and quests to do and so?

 

Is it too hard or out-of-lore?

 

I want my cold-focused Mage to be stronger during winter, and my druid more powerful during summer....

 

Is it possible?

 

***

We could even get a "bad name" for promising resolving something and totally forget after exploring some unknown ruins.

Edited November 17, 2012 by Tarrasque Cult

[Death Machine Miyagi]

For those that want time limits why not just self enforce them? If it bothers you so much that you're allowed to explore while the world is exploding (or whatever) then don't. It's a role playing game after all; play the role of someone pressed for time and let those of us who like to explore do that.

 

Probably for the same reason people who want romances wouldn't be satisfied with, 'Why can't you just pretend the game lets you have a romance', or the same reason people complaining about generic PC dialogue wouldn't be appeased with, 'Why don't you just act like your character is saying something profound?'

 

My stance on this issue, in a nutshell, amounts to this: if you're not going to have time limits, which is all well and good, don't have the game act like there is a time limit. Don't have an NPC say 'Hurry before its too late!' unless you need the player to hurry before its too late. If a city is under siege and the player needs to do things to lift that siege, don't tell the player the enemy could break through at any moment; tell them the siege is ongoing and its unknown when it will end. Leave the timing of things deliberately vague and everyone is satisfied. Otherwise, its a sharp jolt to suspension of disbelief.

 

This should be done for the overwhelming majority of quests, and without exception the main quest, if they mention timing at all. I don't mind a minority of quests with a reasonable time limit, but I'm an explorer, at heart. I don't want to worry about my damn vault dying of thirst if I run off to explore someplace.

 

An example of this being done pretty well: New Vegas. When will the Battle for Hoover Dam start? When will Caesar be prepared to launch his attack? In practice, the answer is 'whenever you've done all the quests you feel like doing.' As such, the game never says 'Caesar should be attacking any day now!'; you can pretend that you have as much or as little time as you like.

Edited November 17, 2012 by Death Machine Miyagi

[Dream]

For those that want time limits why not just self enforce them? If it bothers you so much that you're allowed to explore while the world is exploding (or whatever) then don't. It's a role playing game after all; play the role of someone pressed for time and let those of us who like to explore do that.

 

Probably for the same reason people who want romances wouldn't be satisfied with, 'Why can't you just pretend the game lets you have a romance', or the same reason people complaining about generic PC dialogue wouldn't be appeased with, 'Why don't you just act like your character is saying something profound?'

 

My stance on this issue, in a nutshell, amounts to this: if you're not going to have time limits, which is all well and good, don't have the game act like there is a time limit. Don't have an NPC say 'Hurry before its too late!' unless you need the player to hurry before its too late. If a city is under siege and the player needs to do things to lift that siege, don't tell the player the enemy could break through at any moment; tell them the siege is ongoing and its unknown when it will end. Leave the timing of things deliberately vague and everyone is satisfied. Otherwise, its a sharp jolt to suspension of disbelief.

 

This should be done for the overwhelming majority of quests, and without exception the main quest, if they mention timing at all. I don't mind a minority of quests with a reasonable time limit, but I'm an explorer, at heart. I don't want to worry about my damn vault dying of thirst if I run off to explore someplace.

 

An example of this being done pretty well: New Vegas. When will the Battle for Hoover Dam start? When will Caesar be prepared to launch his attack? In practice, the answer is 'whenever you've done all the quests you feel like doing.' As such, the game never says 'Caesar should be attacking any day now!'; you can pretend that you have as much or as little time as you like.

 

Yea I guess I can see how it'd be a bit jarring when the game specifically states you have to do something asap but lets you do it whenever. Your solution sounds ideal to keeping everyone happy.

[Brother Pain]

I think we already covered this in the "Urgency, please have it" thread and I still feel the same way. Time limit on main quest and other big ones is a big fat NO. Time limit on a few, optional, clearly marked quests could be ok. Completely right now urgent urgent can work by using the combat system (the dying dwarf or the burning barn are losing hp and when they run out you're out of time).

 

Though as a general rule, if a quest doesn't have a damn good reason for being timed AND is optional, I'd rather just leave the time limit out, realistic or not. Arroyo dying, Imhoen being tortured, attacking army is coming, etc.? They can wait until I'm good and ready.

 

Though, if it is really unpleasant to some that a quest implies that you have to hurry and you really don't, a way to handle it is in a completely obvious way where you get to opt out. Think taking the ship to Spellhold or the tanker to the oil rig obvious, and let people put it off as long as they want to. As in "When we start this ritual, we've only got an hour/a day/a week/a year to take out the Big Evil Thing before he lays waste to something or other, are you sure we're ready for this?"

[Game_Exile]

No overarching limit. FO1 limit was *easy* and it still annoyed me to no end.

Clock is ticking and you have no way to know how much you still need to accomplish.

The problem with FO1 isn't that there it has the overarching time limit. The problem is that the entire long term logistics part of the game and most other CRPGs is dumbed down to ****, so that everything is either too easy, meaning the player's choices don't matter in the long run, or too unpredictable and random, so that the choices amount to guessing what the game's content is. Seriously, it doesn't even reach the Facebook Farm level of meaningful complexity.

 

It's not difficult to understand why Star Control 2 was being promoted by the thread starter. It is a good logistics game (leaving aside the fact that most players on their first playthrough won't even suspect there is a hard time limit until it is too late to prepare for it), and it has all its relatively simple elements, including story/setting, beautifully integrated. Obviously, with a CRPG that has a much more complex setting, you will probably need to implement an "overarching" timer and its effects in much more complex ways than in SC2 if you want it to work with the story. Still, something as simple as spawning increasingly difficult monsters/battles at certain time intervals would make the logistics part of the game much more interesting by giving you more reason to get all the great XP/gear/allies/strongholds while on the other hand making you weigh this against the need to do things like travel more efficiently, and avoid resting needlessly.

 

...I don't want things to be timed I want to be able to explore at my own pace if I wanted a linear corridor game that hurries me a long to the next objective I'd go and play COD.

The other way of looking at the "problem" with the timer in FO1 is that it suddenly doesn't make sense to do all the stuff in the game that is unrelated to getting that water chip before time runs out, and you end up having a lot of superfluous setting or "content". This is what people are actually complaining about when they say they want to play "at their own pace" (Seriously, what the f*** else is "at the player's pace" supposed to mean? That you want a really easy game?). It amounts to a "story" complaint, and every other poster in this thread has to some degree or other suggested that the "solution" is to more sensibly integrate the time limits with the story/setting. For a so-called "overarching" timer like the one in FO1, this means you simply make the main quest "goals" much broader so that they encompass many more quests and actions, i.e. much more of the setting/story, thereby making it appropriate for the overarching time limits and their effects to appear in the story no matter what the player chooses to do. And obviously you design and balance it so that it doesn't suck.

 

Look at the two faces of the "overarching" time limit problem, i.e. 1) having (better) logistics integrated with your story vs. 2) keeping (bad tacked-on) logistics from hurting the story, and you get an argument for moving more of the game's long term choices from the character sheet into the "world", meaning into things like gear/strongholds/faction relations/allies and timers(!)/money/stamina(?). It gives you opportunities to better integrate your central logistical elements to parts of the story and setting outside of tactical combat WHILE better showing the probabilities for long term decisions that the player makes, all within the context of "exploration". Designing the logistics more broadly into the setting will, anyway, at least make the game more interesting than just tacking on XP as a quest reward.

 

And as far as short term timers or time limits go, there is no reason not to have a timer in every single instance where it is appropriate to have a timer. Besides flat quest deadlines, you should have things like enemies reinforcing their ranks or retreating, things that appear in night day cycles, etc. Much of this has been done before, anyway.

 

I love getting stoned and then getting lost in the world, just doing whatever my heart desires, catchin butterflies and dragonflies, killing npcs, enjoying the scenery.

You really can't please everybody. At some point the devs have to decide whether they want to make a game about gettting stoned and getting lost, or make a game about adventuring and overcoming challenges. You can't pretend to do both at anything but the most superficial level.

Edited November 17, 2012 by Game_Exile

[LordBlade]

First post on the forums is about something that I feel strongly about.

 

I think that time limits in general are a bad thing for RPGs of this sort. Giving the player the opportunity to explore and enjoy the world then forcing them to do so quickly or they'll lose is honestly a stupid thing to do. It doesn't create a sense of urgency for the plot, it simply reminds the player that they're playing a game with arbitrary limits.

 

Now I'm not saying time limits can't have their place. If it's a side quest, then I could see it applying. Especially if its something where the player has options.

 

For example, a player may be given X amount of time to deliver a medicine somewhere. They will then have options such as taking the quick and dangerous route (full of monsters and such) or taking the safer path which might take them longer. The quick route will save time as long as the player can overcome the obstacles in their way quickly enough. Meanwhile the longer route would have less chance of interruption but any delays may push the player over the limit.

 

If you give the player occasional time limits tied to specific quests, it's not too bad a problem, as long as its well implimented. However just putting arbitrary limits all over the place will seriously harm the flow of the game.

[kenup]

My stance on this issue, in a nutshell, amounts to this: if you're not going to have time limits, which is all well and good, don't have the game act like there is a time limit. Don't have an NPC say 'Hurry before its too late!' unless you need the player to hurry before its too late. If a city is under siege and the player needs to do things to lift that siege, don't tell the player the enemy could break through at any moment; tell them the siege is ongoing and its unknown when it will end. Leave the timing of things deliberately vague and everyone is satisfied. Otherwise, its a sharp jolt to suspension of disbelief.

 

This should be done for the overwhelming majority of quests, and without exception the main quest, if they mention timing at all. I don't mind a minority of quests with a reasonable time limit, but I'm an explorer, at heart. I don't want to worry about my damn vault dying of thirst if I run off to explore someplace.

You see though, those are the same problems with Skyrim. The world doesn't feel alive or is immersive, because most descriptions are vague or non-existent due to the radiant quest system. And on top of that, everything waits for the player's input. So for all we know So for all we know Skyrim is better off if the player doesn't join any guild, or proceed in the main quest(dragons don't appear until a certain quest).

 

This won't work well for a story driven cRPG. It's funny how people want immersion, consequences and for the world to not move around the player, but when it comes to time limits "Oops! I don't want that, because I want the people dying of starvation or thirst to wait, and not die, until I explored the entire map". That's why the exploring argument is bs. Honestly there are much better arguments around, for or against time limits, I'm surprised you "explorers" don't praise bethesda out right.

[Continuum]

Main story - no. Time limit to end game is just frustrating unless the game is perfectly linear and thus the time frames are driven by your plot progress.

 

Individual quests, including those within the story - somewhat. It's ok for certain segments to string together, as long as it's done in a way that doesn't lock out side quests or exploration of a region or that makes it clear you need to finish up the area/side quests before tackling the next phase of the main quest.

 

It generally just works best to have completion of key story tasks be the only thing that locks out areas in terms of moving on. I don't have a problem with the game having various story events that change the available map/quests once that point in the story is past. In fact, I think that used properly that can create a more living world if a city or area changes as the story progresses.

[Cribbian]

I hope not. IMO they add nothing but frustration.

[JFSOCC]

For those that want time limits why not just self enforce them? If it bothers you so much that you're allowed to explore while the world is exploding (or whatever) then don't. It's a role playing game after all; play the role of someone pressed for time and let those of us who like to explore do that.

 

"Self regulation" is the biggest joke of the last few decades. It doesn't work and it never will.

You've got to understand the psychology of people. WHY do people do what they do. after you know that you can build around that.

 

In Baldurs Gate we had a calendar, a month count, but it actually didnt matter.

 

What if we have a calendar with seasons, harvest, festivals and quests to do and so?

 

Is it too hard or out-of-lore?

 

I want my cold-focused Mage to be stronger during winter, and my druid more powerful during summer....

 

Is it possible?

 

***

We could even get a "bad name" for promising resolving something and totally forget after exploring some unknown ruins.

I *really* like the idea of having festivals on certain calendar days. places in town would be dressed up and the streets would be filled with revelers. some non-essential quests could be partnered with it, but for me just the idea that the world is alive and goes on and does things without me is already cool. having people's banter change in the days before a festival, having an altered map in the city during a festival and then some different banter after the festival before turning to normalcy would be really really nice. Especially if all of this is non-coercive and doesn't care whether you participate or not. that would be really immersive.

[Dream]

"Self regulation" is the biggest joke of the last few decades. It doesn't work and it never will.

You've got to understand the psychology of people. WHY do people do what they do. after you know that you can build around that.

 

What's it matter what other people do; it's a single player game.

 

I *really* like the idea of having festivals on certain calendar days. places in town would be dressed up and the streets would be filled with revelers. some non-essential quests could be partnered with it, but for me just the idea that the world is alive and goes on and does things without me is already cool. having people's banter change in the days before a festival, having an altered map in the city during a festival and then some different banter after the festival before turning to normalcy would be really really nice. Especially if all of this is non-coercive and doesn't care whether you participate or not. that would be really immersive.

 

How are you gonna talk about the psychology of people and then say that's a good idea; all it will do is cause people to "rest" in a spot for 10 months.

Edited November 18, 2012 by Dream

[JFSOCC]

"Self regulation" is the biggest joke of the last few decades. It doesn't work and it never will.

You've got to understand the psychology of people. WHY do people do what they do. after you know that you can build around that.

 

What's it matter what other people do; it's a single player game.

And I want it to be a good single player game.

I *really* like the idea of having festivals on certain calendar days. places in town would be dressed up and the streets would be filled with revelers. some non-essential quests could be partnered with it, but for me just the idea that the world is alive and goes on and does things without me is already cool. having people's banter change in the days before a festival, having an altered map in the city during a festival and then some different banter after the festival before turning to normalcy would be really really nice. Especially if all of this is non-coercive and doesn't care whether you participate or not. that would be really immersive.

 

How are you gonna talk about the psychology of people and then say that's a good idea; all it will do is cause people to "rest" in a spot for 10 months.

No it won't, because it is fairly superfluous, and most people won't know about it until they are confronted by it. Also it'll come whether they wait for it or not.

[Rabain]

BG1 did it best I think, they gave you a reasonably open world to explore but eventually you were forced to continue the main story because you run out of places to go until you do (Cloakwood for example).

 

BG2 kind of did the same thing but there it felt much less realistic because of the whole Imoen kidnap, bhaalspawn, soul thing going on as well as the game being pretty linear from Spellhold onwards.

 

Rather than putting a time limit on things I prefer the bottleneck approach of the BG series. Let me wander around the world, the bits of the world I can wander around at least but eventually push me through that bottleneck into new areas.

 

There has to be some line between realism and entertainment in the game. If any story is to be compelling it must have some time compunction but the more you force on the player the less entertainment they can seek in other parts of the game because they are constantly reminded they have to do X before the time runs out. If the story is so time sensitive then there will be no time at all to do anything other than follow the main quest until completion. To me that is boring and restrictive. Even if the story allows me to pursue some minor sidequests while doing it, it will still feel very linear.

 

Personally I prefer the open world, bottleneck, open world, bottleneck approach. It allows the player to feel like he is in a large world while still bringing him back to the main story periodically.

[Wulfic]

If someone begs me to hurry because someone is in Danger I want to have only some amount of time to help him. I want to have the time to equip me for the journey with bandages and stuff and I want to have time to get there. But I really dont want it to be to hardcore.

[Nonek]

Never minded the companion timed quests in BG2, thought they were well handled in the main. I suppose you could have the big quests only activating once certain other objectives have been completed, like dispelling the eternal battleground in the Witcher 2 essentially opening up the endgame of chapter 2, before which you're free to come and go as you wish. Or you could have certain quests and dungeons only be attempted once, and if you fail or retreat there are consequences and potentially other questlines open.

[Michael_Galt]

I had a similar post, with a poll as well. It seems most people don't really like the idea of time limits (I will state right now that I didn't read through all the replies here).

 

http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/62132-game-response-to-protagonist/

 

Personally, I think, the more the merrier. I feel it creates a greater sense of urgency, and makes things "more realistic". I mean, most quests in RPGs don't have time limits in game, where it clearly seems they should. If someone's daughter/children/caravan is ambushed and taken hostage, they likely aren't going to be kept alive more than a few days, if that. But in most games, you could take a few weeks before getting around to looking into it, and you would find them alive and well.

 

I generally think that quests should become more difficult, or have greater likelihood of just not being achievable, with increasing periods of time. Like in the case with of BG 2, where you could take your merry time going to rescue Imoen, and no matter if you rushed or not, the state you found her in would be the same. I would rather there was a timer associated with her quest (as with all others). So, maybe if you got to her within 3 weeks, everything would be groovy, besides a certain someone being able to accomplish a few things before you got there. Perhaps if you took 6 weeks, things would be worse. Maybe a few of her attributes would have decreased, perhaps she would be slightly hostile to you, maybe she would have lost some skills. Perhaps "rescuing" her would be a bit more difficult, with more traps, enemies, whatever. Maybe at 9 weeks, she would have lost a substantial number of skills, would not immediately recognize you and attack you out of confusion, and it would be substantially more difficult to get to her. Maybe at 12 weeks, the same as at 9, except she actually HATES you now, and won't stop attacking you until you bring her within an inch of her death, or you have really high charisma and manage to talk her out of her hostility. Maybe at 15 weeks, you're too late- she's dead.

 

Or in the case of the keep, a similar deal, with an increasing number of trolls at set points of time, following your acceptance/hearing of the quest, with the trolls getting progressively stronger as a group as well. Maybe there are decreasing numbers of survivors left, with none left at a certain point in time.

 

Perhaps if a mayor hired you to clear out a certain area of monsters, or a merchant to kill (or talk into going somewhere else) a pack of bandits plaguing his operations, you would get less of a reward, the longer it took you. So maybe if you did it within a few days, they would have given your "300 gp". But, since it took you 2 weeks, they lost too much money, and are only willing/able to give you 150gp. Maybe because you took a month, they are completely unwilling to pay you. Perhaps you could surmount some of that with a sufficiently high charisma, getting the full amount, or a less reduced amount.

 

I feel employing a system like this would be difficult, in terms of all the scripting, but it would MASSIVELY contribute to the replayability. I mean, if knowing that the quest dynamics would change based on how long you took to "complete" it was understood, maybe your 2nd or 3rd playthrough, you would either wait longer or less long, just to see what the difference was. It would also make you think way more seriously about what you were going to do. Because if you had 3 active quests, and knew that they would all turn out differently dependent on how quickly you completed them, you would have to decide in what order to do them, and what quests you would possibly accept failure in, for taking too long.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

For certain quests, I wouldn't mind a time limit, but I would hate to have a time limit for part of the main quest.

[TrashMan]

Consequences for taking your time (like the NPC's killed, situation changing for the worse)? YES.

Timed quests that FAIL? Yes, if used sparringly

[wanderon]

I'm not against time limits in general altho I would prefer not to see them attached directly to the main quest and I'm fairly confident that PE will not be implementing main quest timers just based on the "spirit" of the game as it has been presented to us thus far.

 

For side quests I agree with what some others have suggested that if a timer is present lets not make it a simple succeed or fail timer but instead let it lead to several possible alternate options in how the quest is resolved adding more complexity to the quest and more opportunity for different journeys on replay.

[DaWu]

No no time limits! Hate every game which makes me rush!

[obsidiansquid]

I don't like time limit idea. If there is time limit, there is stress. If there is stress, there is no fun. And as for me, gamming is about fun.

 

I agree with this. A time limit just stresses me out.. and that isn't fun.

[phimseto]

Just to reiterate what I wrote earlier (and to reintroduce it into the conversation): I am not a fan of timed anything. However, it would be interesting if quests developed/turned out differently based on when you encountered them/what order you finished them. So not "timed" but definitely a matter of player choice and consequence.

[Game_Exile]

Just to reiterate what I wrote earlier (and to reintroduce it into the conversation): I am not a fan of timed anything. However, it would be interesting if quests developed/turned out differently based on when you encountered them/what order you finished them. So not "timed" but definitely a matter of player choice and consequence.

Why aren't you a fan of timed stuff? Is it because it stresses you out, like the guy who posted right above you?