Should P:E have time limits?

[wanderon]

I suspect one of the reasons people do not like timed stuff is just an ease of use issue - unless a game is incredibly linear there are almost always going to be times when you have multiple options facing you and making some of them "timed" means you have to make some hard decisions about what to do next and that might mean some trade offs or having to choose between A & B instead of just taking your own sweet time and doing A, B, C, and all of the above in any order you choose.

 

The downside to never having any timed quests (IMO) is it takes away an opportunity to introduce some real urgency to the gameplay and often times (BG2 I'm looking at you) it leaves you with a game where every quest giver is screaming about how quickly his needs must be met to avoid certain disaster which you fairly quickly determine are all false thus trivializing the very nature of the quest and slapping you in the face with the reality that there is really nothing urgent about anything you are called upon to do in the game.

 

Another annoying aspect of this sort of "ease of use" programming is the period of time BEFORE it becomes plain that there is no urgency to anything you are faced with the dilemma of not knowing whether or not any of the quests are actually urgent or not making the process of deciding what must be done in what order a total nightmare.

 

Do I think all quests should be timed? No

 

Do I think some timed quests could be good? Yes

 

But what I really want is for the game not to lead me astray by telling me something is urgent when it's not or not telling me it's urgent when it is!

[Game_Exile]

But what I really want is for the game not to lead me astray...

 

Wanderon, check out my post here, or on p.3 of this thread. It is basically a matter of matching the strategic elements of the game to their representation in the game's setting/story. Of course the strategic elements and the game's story are practically inseparable (or at the very least should be), but it is still helpful to reflect on the problem by looking at the matter from these different angles.

 

The best way to make both parties happy is, to have limited enemies and content in each area. no respawns. so that a theoritical and possibly actual time limit can be achieved without forcing someone to i.e. ignore or miss a very good sidequest.

 

Respawns are fine as long as they are not too random and they have reasons to be there in the setting/story. Practically everything in the game is going to be "spawned", it's just a matter of making them interesting and sensible. And thinking in terms of "quests" just won't cut it if you want to make major advancements in the genre with this game. You should center the game around it's long range strategic elements and the player's long term goals, not around story bits and text based mini-puzzles in scattered scenarios. You can, of course, also focus down some on the mini puzzles and story bits, and make those parts extra interesting. But if you want an epic story, you should concentrate on the the long term and central elements of your game.

Edited November 21, 2012 by Game_Exile

[Failion]

I'm all for adding time limits if it adds to the game. When I was playing storm of zehir I thought it would be been cool if the developers put time limit scenarios you come across in the game. Like monsters that will destroy a town if you don't do anything. But nope came across nothing of the sort. would be sweet having time limits maybe just very short ones where you have to react fast enough in a battle or game over. Or have a city siege happening in the game you can avoid it and it ends in a stalemate or you can join the battle for one of the sides for the spoils of war.

[Serguei]

I'd like to have some timed quests (but certainly not every quests)

It adds a sense of reality : some matters require urgency and are more important than other mundane tasks

[Cultist]

There's few thing I hate more than time limits in RPGs. They act like sword upon my head. That's why I considered Addiction from Mask of the Betrayer the main flaw that almost crippled the game. It is ok for some side or mini quests, but for main one - Fallout's time limit was one of the main complaints after release.

[quechn1tlan]

I really hated in BG how they badgered you every other day to go to Nashkel and so on. I didn't want to go to Nashkel, I wanted to travel to random useless areas, I wanted to have every sidequest, every non-essential area explored 100% before I proceeded with the main quest. But no, tough luck, pack your bags and go to Nashkel, or else.

 

This was the ony thing I didn't like, hated even, about original BG. In PE I hope they don't implement time limits of any sorts on the main quest.

[Failion]

I can see why CRPG fans do not like time limits. The infinity games were mostly on the casual side beside the difficult combat. But I really love time limits if they implemented good in video games. It seems like the consensus here is that the majority hate a global time limit. Like you have to go to this city in 30 days or retrieve water chip in X amount of days. So why not have limits limited to tactical combat instead. A wave of enemies are coming at you and you can't let enemy of them past a certain point or you fail.

[Game_Exile]

I really hated in BG how they badgered you every other day to go to Nashkel and so on. I didn't want to go to Nashkel, I wanted to travel to random useless areas, I wanted to have every sidequest, every non-essential area explored 100% before I proceeded with the main quest. But no, tough luck, pack your bags and go to Nashkel, or else.

 

This was the ony thing I didn't like, hated even, about original BG. In PE I hope they don't implement time limits of any sorts on the main quest.

 

First of all, I am skeptical about your wanting to travel to "useless" areas. If there was no possibility of quest rewards, gear, or combat, then I doubt even the most pedantic completionists would even bother going far off the main quest paths.

 

Now, the problem in this section of BG wasn't the fact that there was a time limit. The problem was that there was all sorts of stuff that was more interesting and more promising (in terms of possible XP and gear rewards) all over the map, like the "powerful" mage's house and the Ulcaster ruins, if I'm remembering correctly. The answer isn't to eliminate time limits on main quests, but to design and balance the limits and their effects so that they are more global. You do this AND you bring all the really big and interesting stuff like the Ulcaster ruins into the main quest story.

 

It kills the story if:

1) You have a bunch of stuff that looks really significant and interesting in the context of the setting, but it has nothing to do with the "main story". The player should never be asking themselves why some side part of the game isn't the main story, or why it isn't at least involved with it.

 

2) You have a bunch of stuff that is strategically significant, i.e. gear and quest rewards, but it has nothing to do with completing the "main quest". If the player has opportunities to make himself much more powerful or whatever, it a) should appear in the story, and b) should be balanced with respect to the player's long term goals.

 

Look at these two things together and you want A) broader "main" quest goals that fit a wide range of stuff under the umbrella of the story, and B) more central long range logistical elements that are not only strategically signficant, but also "appear" in the setting and story as strategically significant (stuff that's better than tacked-on XP).

 

Here is an example of how a "soft" timer might work. Throughout the game, you have certain sorts of things that give like "soul power" or something. When your "soul power" runs out, your player character dies, but keep in mind that you have many different ways of replenishing your "soul power". The "soul power" interacts with maybe a "light and dark" system that affects your combat abilities and perhaps those of your party members, perhaps including stamina. Lets also say that certain enemies are more susceptible to certain combat abilities or certain incarnations of combat abilities, and buffs, debuffs, etc. are also affected. The "light and dark" system also decides what kinds of "soul power" is more or less nourishing, and is affected by story/quest decisions that the player makes, which will take more or less time or combat, and will yield more or less "soul power" or quest rewards. And there you have it: ways to integrate your story with the strategic elements of the game, ways to integrate your strategic elements (including combat) with each other, your story elements with each other, etc. There are your morality system and story descisions, now strategically important and meaningful, and more significant to combat as well. And you can incorporate all the new stuff people are talking about, like night/day cycles, factions, etc. And of course you have to balance it so that it doesn't suck.

 

Man, I hate having to draw things out like in the paragraph above, because I don't want to tell the devs how to design their game, and I don't want to possibly spoil the game for myself. But what can you do? I already explained all this **** on p.3 of this thread, and there is no sign of anyone understanding it.

[Daulmakan]

I don't mind time limits for "normal", non-mandatory quests, but I dislike them for main quests. I find that whatever "realism" is gained by following a specific plotted-timeframe, is more than compensated by the loss in gameplay quality. I'd rather the pace I explore the gameworld is set by me rather than the game (within the usual parameters of course, I'm not advocating for infinite resting or anything of the like).

[quechn1tlan]

 

First of all, I am skeptical about your wanting to travel to "useless" areas. If there was no possibility of quest rewards, gear, or combat, then I doubt even the most pedantic completionists would even bother going far off the main quest paths.

 

 

Well, your posts on 2d view being archaic and your whole point here that boils down to making mostly everything impossible to miss while following the course of the story, show you as someone who is better off with new-age tunnel games ala Mass Effect, FF13 and so on. So I wouldn't expect you to understand why people like just going around the map, "fighting" fog of war. Please don't go around making wild assumptions about what other people enjoy.

[Game_Exile]

I don't mind time limits for "normal", non-mandatory quests, but I dislike them for main quests. I find that whatever "realism" is gained by following a specific plotted-timeframe, is more than compensated by the loss in gameplay quality. I'd rather the pace I explore the gameworld is set by me rather than the game (within the usual parameters of course, I'm not advocating for infinite resting or anything of the like).

Utter BS. Read my post right above yours, and the one I wrote on p.3 of this thread. They explain everything. Broad timers and timer effects on main quests are the BEST kinds. The main reason for adding strategic elements like timers is to improve "gameplay quality". It has nothing to do with "realism", except at the very extremes. Unless you are reaching for the 3D free roaming genre with this game, it is inappropriate to even be talking about "realism". In any case, it is not useful from a design standpoint.

 

As for "pace": the pace you explore the gameworld is ALWAYS set by you. And the pace you need to do things in order to win the game or get good results is ALWAYS set by the game. Read the thread. People are annoyed when a game has a pace that only pretends to have challenge, but doesn't really have any challenge whatsoever.

 

Your complaint, I suspect, is actually a story complaint. It has nothing to do with pace except at the superficial level of the story. You should read my posts.

Edited November 23, 2012 by Game_Exile

[Alexjh]

I don't have anything against time limits persay, but only if they aren't of the "win/game-over" variety. If you only have 30 minutes to fight your way up the castle before the princess is sacrificed at dawn thats fine, so long as the game continues if you fail and you have to live with the consequences. Perhaps even have some of the time limit scenarios be of the kind where you (actively) failed the initial plan, but someone suggests a "well if you act quickly!" alternative.

 

There were a couple of time limits in IWD2 that worked fine - rescuing the sacrifice victims from the ice temple and stopping the ogres destroying the bridge on the Shaerngarne were nebulous enough threats that you knew there was a time limit on it, but you could fail both and still carry on, but it added a sense of urgency and priority that helped focus the strategies of the area.

[Game_Exile]

First of all, I am skeptical about your wanting to travel to "useless" areas. If there was no possibility of quest rewards, gear, or combat, then I doubt even the most pedantic completionists would even bother going far off the main quest paths.

 

 

Well, your posts on 2d view being archaic and your whole point here that boils down to making mostly everything impossible to miss while following the course of the story, show you as someone who is better off with new-age tunnel games ala Mass Effect, FF13 and so on. So I wouldn't expect you to understand why people like just going around the map, "fighting" fog of war. Please don't go around making wild assumptions about what other people enjoy.

 

More BS. You did not read my posts, or you willfully misinterpreted them. I would never, ever advocate "making mostly everything impossible to miss". Having choices in your game necessitates that you "miss" certain things (strategically and storywise). God, the irony is always so thick with these liars. After he says he wants to be able explore everything 100% before he proceeds with the main quest, he goes and tells me that I am the one who wants to make things "impossible to miss". And "fighting" fog of war? Sure, buddy. Whatever you say. When you have all the time in the world, you are not "fighting" anything. If you want to "fight fog of war", why don't you just take a walk around your neighborhood? That would be way more interesting than "exploring" a video game setting where there are no strategic concerns whatsoever. Or is walking around your neighborhood too stressful for you?

 

And how does my post on the 2d view being archaic have anything at all to do with integrating strategic elements with story elements? Idiot.

Edited November 23, 2012 by Game_Exile

[Game_Exile]

I don't have anything against time limits persay, but only if they aren't of the "win/game-over" variety.

For the "win/game-over" variety of time limits and timers, a "soft" time limit that with very broad goals, like the one I described in my long post, above, would work great. Your ideas about the effects of timers are right on, and they are echoed by a lot of other posters in this thread.

Edited November 23, 2012 by Game_Exile

[Daulmakan]

Utter BS. Read my post right above yours, and the one I wrote on p.3 of this thread. They explain everything. Broad timers and timer effects on main quests are the BEST kinds. The main reason for adding strategic elements like timers is to improve "gameplay quality". It has nothing to do with "realism", except at the very extremes. Unless you are reaching for the 3D free roaming genre with this game, it is inappropriate to even be talking about "realism". In any case, it is not useful from a design standpoint.

I don't think so.

 

For instance, if I'd rather search for Bassilus than going straight to the Nashkel mines (and maybe get wayward while doing so), penalizing me for not following the timed quest plot makes for lesser gameplay than it could be.

 

Or, if everyone I know will die if I don't find the water chip, it's not realistic that I simply go wandering endlessly in the opposite direction (assuming of course a degree of empathy with my vault's plight). With this in mind, chances are I probably won't care about the people and quests I come across if they don't somehow relate to the water chip, or if I do, get tangled and miss the chip's deadline.

 

I dislike both of the above situations. In the first, I don't think the situation justifies the timer. The second one does, but it doesn't lead to more enjoyment on my part, but rather the opposite.

 

As for "pace": the pace you explore the gameworld is ALWAYS set by you. And the pace you need to do things in order to win the game or get good results is ALWAYS set by the game. Read the thread. People are annoyed when a game has a pace that onlypretends to have challenge, but doesn't really have any challenge whatsoever.

Don't agree, see above. Also, I'm not trying to discern what passes for "challenge", real or pretended, for everyone else. If a quest is marked as urgent but doesn't actually have any consequence in not following that regard, it's an oversight, but unless it's a big one (either because it's plot related or the overall presentation is poor), I'm not terribly annoyed by it.

 

Your complaint, I suspect, is actually a story complaint. It has nothing to do with pace except at the superficial level of the story. You should read my posts.

Your suspicion is utter BS.

 

Again, I don't mind it in small quests, because they're small. Otherwise, I'd rather not have them.

[Game_Exile]

For instance, if I'd rather search for Bassilus than going straight to the Nashkel mines (and maybe get wayward while doing so), penalizing me for not following the timed quest plot makes for lesser gameplay than it could be.

You did not read my posts. It is not black and white. It's not a matter of having a penalty or not having a penalty, it is a matter of having more or less things weighing on your decisions, so that your choices are more or less complex and interesting.

 

Or, if everyone I know will die if I don't find the water chip, it's not realistic that I simply go wandering endlessly in the opposite direction (assuming of course a degree of empathy with my vault's plight). With this in mind, chances are I probably won't care about the people and quests I come across if they don't somehow relate to the water chip, or if I do, get tangled and miss the chip's deadline.

I talk about exaclty this in my post on p.3. But you can't just read that section of it. You have to read the entire thing to see what I am saying. That is why I wrote all of it, along with all the elaboration and arguementation that follows on this page. You also need to have some modicum of honesty and intelligence to understand it.

 

As for "pace": the pace you explore the gameworld is ALWAYS set by you. And the pace you need to do things in order to win the game or get good results is ALWAYS set by the game. Read the thread. People are annoyed when a game has a pace that onlypretends to have challenge, but doesn't really have any challenge whatsoever.

Don't agree, see above. [snipped the rest]

What don't you agree with? Because what I said about who sets what for the "pace" is not debatable. It is not an opinion. It is FACT. If you think it is wrong then you should tell me what exactly you think is wrong with it, because I am trying, and I see no space at all for disagreement.

 

Your complaint, I suspect, is actually a story complaint. It has nothing to do with pace except at the superficial level of the story. You should read my posts.

Your suspicion is utter BS.

O RLY?!? Then what were you saying about water chips? Let me quote you again, emphasis added this time.

Or, if everyone I know will die if I don't find the water chip, it's not realistic that I simply go wandering endlessly in the opposite direction (assuming of course a degree of empathy with my vault's plight). With this in mind, chances are I probably won't care about the people and quests I come across if they don't somehow relate to the water chip, or if I do, get tangled and miss the chip's deadline.

Like usual, I am ****ing spot on with my suspicions.

[Daulmakan]

Utter BS

Broad timers and timer effects on main quests are the BEST kinds.

You also need to have some modicum of honesty and intelligence to understand it.

Because what I said about who sets what for the "pace" is not debatable. It is not an opinion. It is FACT.

I see no space at all for disagreement.

Like usual, I am ****ing spot on with my suspicions.

Posting stuff like this (and using CAPS, oooh), I don't think you really need my (or anyone else's) feedback. I'm sure you think it adds to your point, but it doesn't. And it makes me care even less about your posts.

 

But I'll say this. The Fallout mention is just an example to illustrate a point. Which is, a timer that adds a sense of urgency and difficulty to the game also implicitly categorizes in-game content. whatever doesn't relate in some way to the timer is secondary, and going against this order of things will be penalized (in FO1 it likely meant losing the game). In the end, the game sabotages some of its own content to promote another.

 

If you meant to say that plot is related to the timer just because, since it requires an ingame objective to be met, then what a marvelous and obvious observation. Unless of course you think that a timer means exactly the same in P:E or in Street Fighter.

[Game_Exile]

Posting stuff like this (and using CAPS, oooh), I don't think you really need my (or anyone else's) feedback. I'm sure you think it adds to your point, but it doesn't. And it makes me care even less about your posts.

Of course I don't need your feedback, lol. It doesn't matter to me whether you care about my posts. The main reason I'm arguing with you is so that any person who is truly interested in the topic, and who has a modicum of honesty and intelligence, can browse this thread and see how badly I am pwning you. And then that person will become interested in reading more of what I have to say about the topic, unless he is too sorely butthurt about it (which I doubt of any person who is capable of being honest, at least to themselves). And besides that, argumentation helps to make the more correct statements and opinions clearer, and it does this by making less correct statements and opinions look more false, or more clearly what they are: BS. So it sure as hell does "add to your point", lol. And all the stuff you quoted, besides being true, helps to emphasize my points for people who are maybe less interested, at first, and have not thought through the topic yet.

 

But I'll say this. The Fallout mention is just an example to illustrate a point. Which is, a timer that adds a sense of urgency and difficulty to the game also implicitly categorizes in-game content. whatever doesn't relate in some way to the timer is secondary, and going against this order of things will be penalized (in FO1 it likely meant losing the game). In the end, the game sabotages some of its own content to promote another.

It was already clear to me that you were saying this in your earlier post, except in a far different way (lol, you sneaky little liar). Hiding under the same superficial logic from your Nashkel example, and adding fancy language like "order of things" and "sabotage", frankly, doesn't make your argument any more persuasive for anyone but idiots and tools. And like I was saying before, it's not a matter of having a penalty or not having a penalty, it is a matter of having more or fewer things weighing on your decisions, so that your choices are more or less complex and interesting. I wouldn't be satisfied with the devs just slapping on a time limit, either.

 

And what, exactly, IS the objection here: "whatever doesn't relate in some way to the timer is secondary, and going against this order of things will be penalized", if it is not a STORY objection? Lol, is it because being "penalized" or having an "order of things" = bad? What, exactly, is being "sabotaged" by the timer?

 

If you meant to say that plot is related to the timer just because, since it requires an ingame objective to be met, then what a marvelous and obvious observation. Unless of course you think that a timer means exactly the same in P:E or in Street Fighter.

Not one ingame objective, but a whole complex of ingame objectives, some more conspicuous than others. That's why global "soft" timers with broad goals are the best way to implement timers. I've already given an example of how this might work in this post. And obviously, if you are a dev, you implement timers in ways that are appopriate for what you are doing in your game.

 

Man, it's all black and white with people like you. Isn't there anyone who wants a really great game out of this, and is interested in seeing how it can be done? Why would anyone even bother posting here if they're just going to hurl some half baked opinion at someone else's half baked opinion? As if there's nothing more to say than the stuff you can already say by checking some option on some opinion polls.

Edited November 24, 2012 by Game_Exile

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

I personally don't enjoy time limits.

[Game_Exile]

I personally don't enjoy time limits.

Too bad you're not competent enough to explain what you dislike about them.

[wanderon]

Well what a pleasant and civil debate has erupted since I was last here - here's an idea from forum wisdom 101 - don't feed the trolls...

[DreamDancer]

It really depends on what kind or type of game PE wants to be. In an open world game that emphasizes exploration and freedom to do pretty much anything you want, time limits usually don't work that well. As someone already mentioned, the water issue in Fallout made exploring always feeling like under pressure which wasn't really enjoyable. I am one of those players that want total freedom when it comes to how they approach a game world and who wouldl ike to decide when and where they get engaged in the main story line and certan key events of the game.

 

Of course, there can also be time limited quests and events happening in such an open world, but only in places where it makes sense and doesn't distract from the exploration and freedom of choice. You could argue that events that happen in the world and feature some sort of progression are also time limited quests, like a raiding party moving fromt heir camp to a village, then besieging it, then taking over and killing most of the villagers. Something like that should definitely happen in an open world with dynamic content and you could label it as a time limited quest.

 

On the other hand, games with a very strict path that use time limits to induce a sense of urgency, are also totally fine if done right. And with right I mean that they shouldn't try to be a hybrid between an open world free form exploration game and a more linear quest driven game. It pretty much comes down to: either you tell the story yourself or the devs/writers tell the story that features you. Both approaches work, but mixing them is usually tricky and can lead to a very unsatisfying experience.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Too bad you're not competent enough to explain what you dislike about them.

 

I didn't realize that simply answering the question posted in the thread title "Should P:E have time limits?" is considered incompetence. Too bad you're comprehension abilities are not up to par.

Edited November 24, 2012 by KaineParker

[JFSOCC]

please keep discussion civil, everyone.

[Jymm]

I'm ignoring your flames and going back to the original post.

 

Agreeing with what seems to be the consensus:

1. A main plot that is time-limited is in direct conflict with a game that encourages exploration and is content-rich with sidequests. Thus a bad fit for what most of us are expecting from PE.

2. its freaking annoying when NPCs claim that X peril is happening now and we are free to ignore it indefinitely. What's the point of having them say it? The world feels less real, the consequences of my heroism feel less... well... heroic. So time limits are common sense in places. Some of those places might even be part of the main quest so long as it doesn't preclude us from experiencing certain content because we're rammed into a plot tunnel.

3. Wherever time is limited or action needs to be taken, it should be clear. Where you are free to roam, that should also be clear.

 

Simple enough.