Should P:E have time limits?

[Draczeq]

How should time limits be handled imo:

1. Player should not be limited by real or ingame time (ie 5 minutes, 5 ingame days, ...)

- with an exeption of running away from explosion and that should be done by badass cutscene anyway

2. Player should be limited by his prioritizing instead (ie. dont leave some area before finishing quest, finishing one quest before another, finishing quest before moving on with main story)

- (DA:O) Village is going to be attacked tonight either you decide to stay and help or leave. If you have left and returned next morning the village should be in a state after attack (but the attack does not have to mean that the village lost and everyone died, the villagers will try to fight back, I hate if world spins around the heroes and ordinary people just lie down and die unless they are helped by PC)

3. If there is a time constrain (only at night, only from 8-16, only at full moon) player must have good option available to let him wait for that anywhere its applicable

4. Failing time limit should not mean fail of the quest, fail of the game, it should open different scenario, give new or other options, change the enviroment

- (Heavy Rain) Either you escape police chase in time and you continue from subway where you escaped or you are caucht by the police and you continue your story from police station, or either you solve some riddle on time and you continue with riddle solved or you fail and you continue without it and have to look for other clues

 

* with the village example if there has been attack every night before the player came, that means the village managed to survive for long before the player came, the village will last more nights for sure, some people might die (closing their roles as shoppers, quest givers, hint givers, ...) other people might arrive (new shoppers, new quest givers, new hint givers, ...) , ie. helping to rally the villagers and then leaving to explore the source of trouble might be better then staying and fighting alongside or might not, maybe the attack will ruin some house and reveal a great mystery. And this comes back to point 4. Every decision should lead somewhere, things should not be black and white ... things should be in different shades of pink

[Michael_Galt]

Yeah, I'm all in favor of time limits, and on everything. What I don't think is that every time limit has to be short or "stark". Some things might take weeks to "evolve" to the next stage if not addressed, others might take hours or days. The writers would obviously have to determine the "importance hierarchy" and adjust accordingly. Truly important quests that would be impacted by inattention would have the most "nuances"/"stages". So rather than 1 to 2 different progressions of what might change if you don't act "quickly enough", there are 3-6. For an unimportant quest, perhaps there are just the 1-2 variations, which might take some time to play out. This would result in everything being variable, but obviously they can't make EVERYTHING extremely variable- only the things that matter.

 

The idea is that, in game, for the important stuff, you can see it changing as you are playing and that gives you a sense of urgency to address the issue. For the unimportant stuff, it isn't as immediately noticable, but it does make a difference, however slight it is.

[Sacred_Path]

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.

 

Cannot agree here. If there is no optional content or an open world, time limits don't make any sense in an RPG.

 

The point of time limits is to establish a sense of urgency, but also to make the player pick and choose exploration and quest opportunities that go well with your character(s). It also discourages rest spamming. If you funnel the player down a linear path in your game and also add a time limit, you prevent the player from making those choices. All that can happen is making the player click faster, which isn't a test of skill in RPGs as they tend not to rely heavily on twitch skills.

[Game_Exile]

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

Yeah, you'd like to believe it's just flames, wouldn't you?

 

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.

My posts address this matter in a little more nuance. It is not all black and white, the way you are putting it.

 

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.

This is exactly what many people in this thread have already said. Congratulations on repeating their complaints, and ignoring the only content in the thread (my posts) that examine what is behind them.

 

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.

Not necessarily in every case, but OK if you like.

 

Simple enough.

Nope, what you have mentioned is just what is simple enough for you to understand.

[jivex5k]

I think I said this earlier in this thread but I would hate time limits.

 

I want to be able to spend weeks on side quests and exploration.

[anek]

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.

 

Although the quests in the Drow City in the Underdark were actually timed, I think.

 

I agree with your overall point though.

[Lephys]

I think time-sensitive content can be very valuable, as many have pointed out already. If you eliminate it completely, you suck all urgency or tension out of anything in the entire game.

 

However, I think the line should be drawn at relative time limits. What I mean by this is, if the town is under attack, you essentially shouldn't be allowed to do anything with your characters that would progress world time (i.e. travel to some far away cave, rest for a week, etc.) until you've delt with the town defense. And, once the attack on the town has begun, you can even have active time limits (i.e. get to this gate and barricade it closed before too many hostiles get through, or get to it before the forces defending it die and allow all the hostiles through, etc.). But, UNTIL you decide, the attack on the town should not actually commence. Essentially, you've got a gameworld time freeze while you prep (for things you know about any amount of time in advance).

 

The reason for this is, people involuntarily have differing speeds at which they interact with things and take in information. A person might be able to read just fine, but they might read a paragraph at 1/3 the speed that you do (someone proposed, I think in the day/night cycle thread, that the passage of world-time be paused during conversations, and this makes perfect sense.) It's not just dialogue, though. Some people have ADD, or other variants in brain function that cause them to take longer to figure out the layout of a town, or to take longer to decide which weapons and armor to purchase. So if the town is going to be attacked in 5 minutes, real-time, no matter what, then some people are going to be capable of getting their preparations done in 4 minutes, and some people are going to take 6 minutes to get those exact same preparations done, despite their best efforts.

 

Not only that, but you could simply save often and reload the game to basically mulligan your attempts to get ready. So the active time limit isn't really gaining anything from a design standpoint, other than pissing off the people who were "too slow." Again, I'm it's fine to have the "get to the gate!" or "get out of here before the cave collapses!" scenarios, but it would be silly to run into instances of "I didn't even know I was supposed to get to the gate yet, or that the town was being attacked now, because it just happened after a certain amount of time no matter what" or "that cave collapsed before I even went inside once!".

 

Anywho, the point of urgency is that you must manage your time, as opposed to not-managing it. Beyond that, you don't really gain anything by holding everything to a single, active clock. The urgency of something should be relative to a point of non-urgency before it. There's no need to turn the game into a speed run. If it takes me 30 minutes to talk to everyone in town, and it takes my friend 15 minutes to talk to everyone in town, what does it matter? It should be understood, for the purposes of realism, that the characters would take the same amount of time no matter what if they got to do it themselves.

 

And as for complete failure? That's even worse when it's not attached to a short time-sensitive duration. You start the game, you do some stuff, you save. You do some stuff, you save. You do some stuff, you save. 50 hours of gameplay later, it turns out you've missed the date on which some evil broke out of its tomb by about an hour of gameplay, spread out here and there over various actions and choices throughout the last 10 hours you've played. Well, I guess it's just time to reload a save from 10 hours ago and redo all the stuff you didn't fail at, simply because it happened to all add up to just a little too much time. If you even HAVE a save from that far back.

 

So, no I don't think you should be able to go off questing in a completely different direction when the town's supposed to be under siege that night, but nor should you have to frantically make sure you time everything perfectly to match up with the start of the siege. Your time limits should exist in segments, and they should be relative to progression milestones. As long as you have to address the immediate urgency of a given situation as opposed to being able to go do random other things, the benefit of the restriction is there.

[Game_Exile]

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.

 

Cannot agree here. If there is no optional content or an open world, time limits don't make any sense in an RPG.

 

The point of time limits is to establish a sense of urgency, but also to make the player pick and choose exploration and quest opportunities that go well with your character(s). It also discourages rest spamming. If you funnel the player down a linear path in your game and also add a time limit, you prevent the player from making those choices. All that can happen is making the player click faster, which isn't a test of skill in RPGs as they tend not to rely heavily on twitch skills.

 

What do time limits have to do with what will "go well with your character(s)"?

 

For anyone who is not already clear on this, what distinguishes "making meaningful choices" from "picking options" (or customization) is the amount of complexity in the choice. A choice arises when what is going to happen to a lot of otherwise separate things suddenly appears to depend on whether you go one way or the other. Now there are more or less significant choices, but every choice is a crossroads, nonetheless. The choice comes from a complex of stuff that has happened before, and shapes what will happen to that stuff later. A choice is strategic in exactly this sense, and it is this strategic content that gives the choice its significance. While you can make a choice more intelligently or less intelligently, you can still sense the significance of your choices no matter how well you are able to sense exactly how they are significant. So, when you are making a choice, you are always trying to make the right choice, but when you are merely "picking an option", or "customizing", what is right or what is wrong amounts to a matter of superficial taste, barely even feng shui.

 

And while we're on the subject of choices, lets talk about "moral choices" in games. In "real life", serious moral choices are among the most complex choices a person can make. Now, most of what goes into moral choices is completely unconscious, and that is because moral choices are false. See, a moral choice pretends to be about what is good or evil, but it is actually an evaluation of a person's position of power in relation to the rest of the world, i.e. it is a choice about shaping the kind of world that would best suit the perons who is making the "moral" choice. A person's entire life appeaars in a moral choice, so it is no wonder that some people will even sacrifice their lives in moral choices.

 

Now here is why "moral choices" in video games almost always amount to shallow customization, unless they are linked to some strategic content. Because it is about shaping the "game world" that best suits the player's "avatar". But what is the game world, and what, exactly, does the player's avatar have to DO with it? If a game's choices choices are not linked to the strategic part of the game, and they do not affect the main story, then they simply go nowhere, i.e. they are customization. But in "real life", moral choices are about the things that go farthest. You cannot just slap a "moral choice" scenario into the game and expect people to have just the right emotional/symbolic baggage to make that choice resonate, like pornographer's do with sex. There must be complex and long range effects connected to the choices, that are actually IN the game. While a video game playthrough inevitably ends, the world continues, even after we are dead. If you do not want your game's story to be ridiculous, then you should use "moral choices" very carefully and sparingly, and always with the strategic, or "real" consequences of each choice in the forefront, i.e. make it both intelligible and "believable".

 

God, I'm smart.

 

So, no I don't think you should be able to go off questing in a completely different direction when the town's supposed to be under siege that night, but nor should you have to frantically make sure you time everything perfectly to match up with the start of the siege. Your time limits should exist in segments, and they should be relative to progression milestones. As long as you have to address the immediate urgency of a given situation as opposed to being able to go do random other things, the benefit of the restriction is there.

See my example of a soft time limit at the bottom half of this post. Obviously, with global time limits, it's not about frantically getting things done, but about making smart and efficient choices. And why should someone else's siege be activated by the player's avatar? Are you saying that everything in the game should be instigated by the player?

 

If it takes me 30 minutes to talk to everyone in town, and it takes my friend 15 minutes to talk to everyone in town, what does it matter? It should be understood, for the purposes of realism, that the characters would take the same amount of time no matter what if they got to do it themselves.

What does this have to do with "purposes of realism"? The game should have challenges wherever it is appropriate.

 

Again, I'm it's fine to have the "get to the gate!" or "get out of here before the cave collapses!" scenarios, but it would be silly to run into instances of "I didn't even know I was supposed to get to the gate yet, or that the town was being attacked now, because it just happened after a certain amount of time no matter what" or "that cave collapsed before I even went inside once!".

This is completely different from what you say elsewhere in your post. Not being prepared for an unforseeable event has nothing to do with a player's competence. But i at least sort of agree with what you are saying here.

 

Only what is your objection "the town was being attacked now, because it just happened after a certain amount of time no matter what"? I don't understand why you think this is silly.

Edited December 1, 2012 by Game_Exile

[Lephys]

See my example of a soft time limit at the bottom half of this post. Obviously, with global time limits, it's not about frantically getting things done, but about making smart and efficient choices. And why should someone else's siege be activated by the player's avatar? Are you saying that everything in the game should be instigated by the player?

 

No, but that does not automatically mean that everything in game should happen completely on its own, arbitrary schedule. The NPCs don't care if world time is passing realistically. The player is making no one but himself wait if he decides to search a section of forest for 10 minutes as opposed to 1 minute. Having a clock start ticking when you begin a playthrough, and having things be based on that serves no purpose whatsoever that relative option-restrictions do not serve. You allow the player to pause, or save his game and exit the program and shut his computer down and use the restroom, right? So why does it matter how long it takes him to re-outfit his characters, or decide what to do with level-up points?

 

What does this have to do with "purposes of realism"? The game should have challenges wherever it is appropriate.

 

You're suggesting that virtual realism isn't served by having time pass no matter what you're doing (just as it does in reality?). I don't understand the question. I didn't say "Anything in the game that's a challenge should be adjusted so that it is no longer a challenge." I'm merely suggesting that, by having a real-time, active timer that makes the world go round, you're achieving the urgency of which you speak in aspects of the game in which it is appropriate, PLUS every single other aspect of the game in which it isn't appropriate.

 

I.e. if after a month a town gets burned down no matter what, but you don't know that that town even exists, much less is under threat of being attacked by anyone from the very start of the game, then you may very well do plenty of things that aren't benefitted by a sense of urgency, only to come to a flaming pile of rubble when you DO make it to that town. Therefore, for the timer to serve any purpose, you have to FORCIBLY convey the player to that town within a certain amount of game time. Absolutely nothing is gained by starting a countdown before the player even has knowledge of what it applies to.

 

In other words, for ANY content for which a sense of urgency makes no sense or serves no purpose, you still have one applied to it.

 

This is completely different from what you say elsewhere in your post. Not being prepared for an unforseeable event has nothing to do with a player's competence. But i at least sort of agree with what you are saying here.

 

Only what is your objection "the town was being attacked now, because it just happened after a certain amount of time no matter what"? I don't understand why you think this is silly.

 

This wasn't in opposition to what I was saying elsewhere in my post. This continues directly from what I said above. If you get to a point at which you discover a town is going to be attacked, and you're at that town, and it hasn't been attacked yet, then restricting the player to only those things that wouldn't pass hours and hours of game world time makes more sense than saying "You can totally go get the blacksmith to repair your armor now, but you only have TWO MINUTES!". Even though time is essentially frozen during this point, as long as the player can't do anything like sleep for the night, or run off across miles of countryside and come back, or go play darts in the tavern for 12 hours, then it's understood that their decision is time-sensitive. Obviously, you could allow them to do these things, at the cost of the town attack occurring (once they unfreeze time by making a time-passing choice), but the alternative is pointless (making the attack start in 10 minutes no matter what). If I'm a slow reader, I'm not nilly willy CHOOSING to read some text for 15 minutes instead of 5. I just either choose to read that text and it takes me 15 minutes, or I choose to skip it and it takes me no minutes.

 

You essentially end up penalizing the player based on game-world time (which is silly, because, if YOU were your character, in the actual game world, a brief conversation or the browsing of some wares at a merchant's shop would ACTUALLY take 5 or 10 minutes, rather than 5-or-10-minutes-which-represent-2-hours-in-the-game-world) for performing actions at a certain speed in non-game-world time. Unless, of course, you have the game-world time be real-time. 24-hour clock.

 

I hope that makes sense. Also, I'm not suggesting you're arguing against all my points or anything. I'm merely clarifying what my points are.

[Game_Exile]

No, but that does not automatically mean that everything in game should happen completely on its own, arbitrary schedule. The NPCs don't care if world time is passing realistically. The player is making no one but himself wait if he decides to search a section of forest for 10 minutes as opposed to 1 minute. Having a clock start ticking when you begin a playthrough, and having things be based on that serves no purpose whatsoever that relative option-restrictions do not serve. You allow the player to pause, or save his game and exit the program and shut his computer down and use the restroom, right? So why does it matter how long it takes him to re-outfit his characters, or decide what to do with level-up points?

Of course everything shouldn't happen on an arbitrary schedule, it should fit the setting/story. And since when has anyone suggested that the game shouldn't pause when you are choosing how to re-outfit characters or deciding what to do with level up points? Did you read my example for the global soft time limt, before you responded to me? There is a reason I linked it.

 

I'm merely suggesting that, by having a real-time, active timer that makes the world go round, you're achieving the urgency of which you speak in aspects of the game in which it is appropriate, PLUS every single other aspect of the game in which it isn't appropriate.

If it fits what is supposed to be happening in the story and setting then it is appropriate. The only events where a lead up timer would be inappropriate are ones that rely on the player character to trigger them, according to the story/setting.

 

I.e. if after a month a town gets burned down no matter what, but you don't know that that town even exists, much less is under threat of being attacked by anyone from the very start of the game, then you may very well do plenty of things that aren't benefitted by a sense of urgency, only to come to a flaming pile of rubble when you DO make it to that town. Therefore, for the timer to serve any purpose, you have to FORCIBLY convey the player to that town within a certain amount of game time. Absolutely nothing is gained by starting a countdown before the player even has knowledge of what it applies to.

"Forcibly convey"? If you want the timer to be significant in the player's decisionmaking, you just make it very likely or certain that the player will find out about the timer and its likely effects early on, so the player can make choices around it. Also, imo, there's no reason why there shouldn't be some semblance of fortune and chance in the game. This might actually make multiple playthroughs of a game worthwhile.

 

And if you are going to the trouble of creating a town for your game, you should probably make it so that there is signficant stuff to do there, whether or not the player stops some bandit attack or whatever. But if the setting can transform in significant ways based on timed events like this, it can make players' choices that much more interesting (and will also require a whole lot more work to design and implement, I know).

 

If you get to a point at which you discover a town is going to be attacked, and you're at that town, and it hasn't been attacked yet, then restricting the player to only those things that wouldn't pass hours and hours of game world time makes more sense than saying "You can totally go get the blacksmith to repair your armor now, but you only have TWO MINUTES!". Even though time is essentially frozen during this point, as long as the player can't do anything like sleep for the night, or run off across miles of countryside and come back, or go play darts in the tavern for 12 hours, then it's understood that their decision is time-sensitive.

It is much clearer what you are saying here. But if it is going to take hours and hours for the siege to start, why shouldn't there be an active timer that lasts for those hours?

Edited December 1, 2012 by Game_Exile

[AGX-17]

It really, really, really depends on what kind of story is being told. What little we do know of P:E's plot doesn't sound as though it's some kind of "the Super Devil and his Super Devil Super Army™ are invading at a set, unchanging pace! Only you can stop the Super Devil Super Army™, chosen one! Hurry up before the Super Devil arrives to crush the goodly kingdom of Eternia!" It sounds like it's going to be a more personal sort of story for the PC, at least in its beginnings.

Edited December 1, 2012 by AGX-17

[Game_Exile]

It really, really, really depends on what kind of story is being told.

How timers and time limits should work depend not merely on what kind of story, but on what particular story is being told. Every detail demands a timer of some sort, some more significant or worthwhile to implement than others.

 

What little we do know of P:E's plot doesn't sound as though it's some kind of "the Super Devil and his Super Devil Super Army™ are invading at a set, unchanging pace!

It's been mentioned several times in this thread that timers' effects and the way they function should vary according to the demands of the setting/story. A "set, unchanging pace" is only the simplest way a timer can function.

 

It sounds like it's going to be a more personal sort of story for the PC, at least in its beginnings.

It is appropriate to have timers and time limits on "personal" stuff as well. In fact these sorts of timers would probably be much easier to implement (see my example in this post). And it sure as hell will not be only "personal" stuff that happens in the game's story. Unless by "personal" stuff, you mean everything that just "waits" around forever for the player to come mess with it?

[AGX-17]

It really, really, really depends on what kind of story is being told.

How timers and time limits should work depend not merely on what kind of story, but on what particular story is being told. Every detail demands a timer of some sort, some more significant or worthwhile to implement than others.

 

What little we do know of P:E's plot doesn't sound as though it's some kind of "the Super Devil and his Super Devil Super Army™ are invading at a set, unchanging pace!

It's been mentioned several times in this thread that timers' effects and the way they function should vary according to the demands of the setting/story. A "set, unchanging pace" is only the simplest way a timer can function.

 

It sounds like it's going to be a more personal sort of story for the PC, at least in its beginnings.

It is appropriate to have timers and time limits on "personal" stuff as well. In fact these sorts of timers would probably be much easier to implement (see my example in this post). And it sure as hell will not be only "personal" stuff that happens in the game's story. Unless by "personal" stuff, you mean everything that just "waits" around forever for the player to come mess with it?

 

I mean a more philosophical, introspective narrative a la P:T. The only possible time limit you could conceive for that is the player character's lifespan (which would be no time limit in that example.) I'm not saying there shouldn't be time-limited quests, I'm saying the main quest/the game itself should not have a time limit unless the story clearly and believably justifies it.

Edited December 1, 2012 by AGX-17

[Game_Exile]

"Philosophical" and "introspective"? If events happen in a game without the player triggering them in the story, then it is appropriate to have timers on them, especially when the player is able to see how things are before and after the event's effects take place. Since noone is bothering to click on links, I'll quote my example again.

 

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.

 

See the beauty of it? "Soul power" is not only "philosophical" and "introspective" because you get to talk about souls and death and ****; it also makes the soul and death **** strategically meaningfully and helps to integrate the strategic depth with the game's story. And no, I'm not saying the devs should do exactly this, it's just an example to illustrate how well strategic components and broad main quest goals integrated with the "story" can combine to make the game more interesting and meaningful.

 

And dude, did you really have to quote my entire post to answer that one rhetorical question on the tail end? Lazy bastard.

Edited December 1, 2012 by Game_Exile

[Cultist]

One example of bad time limit implementation is Mass Effect 2 - after you recruited Legion, you get an abduction event where all of your crew got kidnapped by colllector attack. Then, timer.kicks in. You can complete only one mission without "harm", then it's a countdown - for each additional mission the amount of surviving crew is reduced by 25%. So to get the best outcome, i.e. save everyone, you have to complete all missions, then recruit Legion, then complete his Loyalty mission and then go stright for Collector base. Basiacally, timer forces you to avoid recruiting Legion. So if you want to see him interacting with the world and his opinions on missions you complete, you are sacrificing the crew.

[Lephys]

Did you read my example for the global soft time limit, before you responded to me? There is a reason I linked it.

 

I did, actually. I apologize; I sort of stuck to clarifying my argument regarding the global timer/proper usage of timers in general, rather than trying to do that AND respond to your whole previous post. Perhaps I shouldn't have done that, but I'm already wordy enough as it is, haha. Seriously, though, I'm sorry about that confusion. For what it's worth, your soft timer example makes perfect sense as one way of getting around the problems I'm posing with the hard clock-timer.

 

It is much clearer what you are saying here. But if it is going to take hours and hours for the siege to start, why shouldn't there be an active timer that lasts for those hours?

 

Well, it goes along with what you were saying about pausing time during re-outfitting/dialogue, etc. I'm merely trying to illustrate from a strictly logical breakdown that, if you're going to pause time for anything, then you're not really dealing with a static, active timer. If you're going to acknowledge that certain processes (such as reading and choosing items to purchase) are going to lose all accuracy in the real-world-to-game-world time translation (which one should, and you, personally, are), then you have only 2 options: Break up the static, active timer (freeze time) in order to account for this time discrepancy, OR keep it going, thereby applying the timer directly to player processes which gain nothing from being timed other than inconvenience.

 

And I wasn't trying to say that you were advocating anything and everything that I wasn't. I'm only trying to illustrate the problem with a global, always-ticking, everything-in-the-game-happens-at-certain-times-no-matter-what timer. The benefit of tension comes only in the situations in which the player is directly dealing with a problem. So, in that way, what you do in the hours leading up to a city siege is irrelevant, so long as it isn't something that would understandably have you missing the city siege (leaving the city to explore a cave, sleeping for a day, etc.). Once the player is allowed to affect the siege in any way, a timer provides a strategic tension, and all choices from there on out gain added significance.

 

So, whether or not you do it via the commonly-used "Okay, we should go to the walls to start prepping for the attack" dialogue option that then queues time to skip to some starting point for the siege, or via some other means, there is literally no point in ticking down a clock during any period of time during which the player is partaking in any other game mechanics which are understood to require little to no time on the characters' parts.

 

As for specifically how this should be applied in P:E, we'd obviously have to know the exact setup of the entire game's story and all its quests, so all we can really do here is theory-craft to determine what type of equation works best with what sorts of factors.

 

And, for the record, I'm very much in favor of having certain choices/occurrences that cannot be experienced during the same playthrough as others. I LOVE replayability, and find a lot of games unnecessarily lacking in it. You just don't want a timing system intended to meaningfully support player choices under appropriately tense circumstances to HAPPEN to make a bunch of content unintentionally require another playthrough.

 

Another way to look at it is, if EVERYTHING in the game becomes tense, then the benefit of the contrast between tense and non-tense situations becomes lost. You run into "should I even attempt to explore that town, or should I just skip it? I might waste time simply finding out whether or not I deem anything in that town worth my time."

 

All things in moderation.

[Game_Exile]

For what it's worth, your soft timer example makes perfect sense as one way of getting around the problems I'm posing with the hard clock-timer.

Thanks for taking the time to read my post, man. I'm glad you liked it.

 

As for specifically how this should be applied in P:E, we'd obviously have to know the exact setup of the entire game's story and all its quests, so all we can really do here is theory-craft to determine what type of equation works best with what sorts of factors.

Yes, but some "setups" of "factors" and "equations" are far more interesting than others. Long range timers add another dimension to how the game works and how you think about it, like going from algebra to calculus.

 

My question about whether or not you should have a timer on the hours leading up to the siege is a rhetorical question. The only reason why the devs wouldn't put a timer on it is if they couldn't find a way to properly balance the timer with everything else in the game. But that's why they should design everything with timers and time limits in mind from the very beginning instead of just slapping them onto canned story scenarios; so that timers and everything else work out to be interesting and cool, instead of uninteresting and lame.

 

And the reason why your posts are so "wordy" is because they are full of stupid BS. E.g. Your attempt at analysis in response to my rhetorical question about the "siege" was doomed from the very start, because you are just pretending like you have some general point to make about timers when, in fact, you do not. Here is the shining jewel:

The benefit of tension comes only in the situations in which the player is directly dealing with a problem.

Yeah, thanks for telling us what things look like in the opposite of reality. If you haven't realized already, the major benefit of timers compared to other strategic "devices" (meaning strategic components in the context of the game's "story") is that they necessarily affect everything the player does outside of pauses. In any particular instance the significance of the timer can appear to be marginal or great, but there is always some impact, and it will always make sense for it to have an impact.

[Laos]

There's a fine balance in the mechanic of time. On one hand it can really add thrill and realism because you feel pressed to the task, and even make you scared or uncomfortable while playing because it forces you into a new environment that you can later return to in a comfortable - without a time limit - circumstance. On the other hand it can irk the user and make them not want to take the task.

 

I think certain tasks need a relevant time scale. For example. If I grab a quest as level 1, forget about it, and try to complete it when I'm level 30, much like WoW i feel relevance has subsided and that person, from a gameplay perspective, would moved on. Like milk, some quests get sour if you let this sit around forever.

 

Meanwhile, the usage of time should be exclusively for gameplay purposes, and should keep in mind a circumstance where you can do the entire quest on that dedicated timeline and not have to do other things, be distracted, and feel torn apart.

[Lephys]

And the reason why your posts are so "wordy" is because they are full of stupid BS.

 

As opposed to intelligent BS. Thanks for clarifying, . I'm sorry I answered your obviously rhetorical question on a discussion forum. I guess I should have listened to the screen harder to determine your tone. Again, totally my mistake.

 

Yeah, thanks for telling us what things look like in the opposite of reality. If you haven't realized already, the major benefit of timers compared to other strategic "devices" (meaning strategic components in the context of the game's "story") is that they necessarily affect everything the player does outside of pauses. In any particular instance the significance of the timer can appear to be marginal or great, but there is always some impact, and it will always make sense for it to have an impact.

 

The problem with what you're saying lies in the fact that this is a video game, designed to achieve goals beyond the simulation of the impact of time limits in reality on our decisions in reality. A game is meant to be enjoyed, and an RPG is meant to be enjoyed in innumerable ways, compared to other games. If you place a time limit on the whole game, you basically place every single player on the same schedule. If you design the whole game around that schedule, you've basically got a linear RPG with a whole bunch of branches. Because, if a city falling to a siege can happen just because you didn't even go to that city in time, then it CAN'T have been integral to the over-arching story that you be at that siege. You'd either have to make everything basically inconsequential to any kind of coherent plot, or you'd have to have people fail every time they didn't make it somewhere on time (Fallout water chip example).

 

The only USEFUL impact of a global timer like that is that it makes your choices have consequences. This is an impact that can be achieved by other means without the unintentional negative consequences.

 

In other words, with the city siege example, the intended GOAL of the timer is to make the player's choice of how to handle the situation a significant one, rather than just "something you can do when you feel like it." If everyone in the city dies and your enemies now inhabit the city because you didn't get to it before the siege occurred or simply ignored the siege, then either:

 

A) It doesn't really matter, things are just different now, OR

B) It mattered a lot, and now you've failed.

 

If it's A, then you keep going until something else in the game is eventually B. It's just like character death. You can't just make it "Oh well, you're a spirit now, and you keep going, and can never attack anything or speak to anyone again." No, you literally are incapable of finishing the game at that point, so you HAVE to retry.

 

Eventually, something's got to be failable, and force you to retry, and if you know that's the case, then you KNOW that with a hard global timer, you're making players re-do 20 hours of gameplay to correct their timing issues. It's not "Oh well, you'll get different outcomes on a different playthrough." It's "Oh man, maybe you'll actually get to finish the GAME this time!" Which is about as enjoyable as a blade coming out of the PC and stabbing my arm every time my character takes damage from a dagger.

[Game_Exile]

The problem with what you're saying lies in the fact that this is a video game, designed to achieve goals beyond the simulation of the impact of time limits in reality on our decisions in reality.

LOL?

 

If you place a time limit on the whole game, you basically place every single player on the same schedule.

How can you read my example of a soft timer and still say this nonsense? Yes, that's a rhetorical question, smart guy.

 

Because, if a city falling to a siege can happen just because you didn't even go to that city in time, then it CAN'T have been integral to the over-arching story that you be at that siege.

Of course it can be integral to the story. Unless you need to have some kind of completely linear story that your actions have no impact on. Lol, moron.

 

The only USEFUL impact of a global timer like that is that it makes your choices have consequences. This is an impact that can be achieved by other means without the unintentional negative consequences.

1) Let me clarify one thing about "global" timers" that I should have made clear before. Every timer is global, period. The differences are when/why the timer starts, and what the timer's effects are (including duration).

 

2) The only "useful" impact of any strategic component in the game is to make your choices have consequences. Implementing anything in the game can have "unintentional negative consequences", and that's why you design and balance the game. Obviously, the more complex the game is, the harder it's going to be to make everything cohesive. You're basically saying that the devs shouldn't try to implement complex mechanics, because they are very tricky to implement well.

 

Eventually, something's got to be failable, and force you to retry, and if you know that's the case, then you KNOW that with a hard global timer, you're making players re-do 20 hours of gameplay to correct their timing issues.

Everything you're saying is based on the assumption that any sort of long term timer will a) force players to take one optimal path through the game, or else b) the timer will have no point and add nothing to the game.

If everyone in the city dies and your enemies now inhabit the city because you didn't get to it before the siege occurred or simply ignored the siege, then either:

A) It doesn't really matter, things are just different now, OR

B) It mattered a lot, and now you've failed.

LOL at you not being able to imagine how failing at some task could matter without effectively ending the game right then and there. What you say only makes sense if you assume the game will be completely linear, which is exactly what we want to avoid with long term timers. You apparently have no ****ing clue what complexity means (everything is all black and white to you idiots).

 

And you can stop pretending like I haven't been pwning you from the very start.

Edited December 6, 2012 by Game_Exile

[Lephys]

LOL?

 

You got my joke. Splendid, ^_^

 

How can you read my example of a soft timer and still say this nonsense? Yes, that's a rhetorical question, smart guy.

 

SOMEhow it's torical again? I don't understand how it was ever torical once before. u_u

 

Of course it can be integral to the story. Unless you need to have some kind of completely linear story that your actions have no impact on. Lol, moron.

 

You're right. I forgot... when you don't get that water chip for Vault 13 in Fallout, the story just takes a different path. Called restart. Man, I really like the other path better, though. The one where you keep playing.

 

1) Let me clarify one thing about "global" timers" that I should have made clear before. Every timer is global, period. The differences are when/why the timer starts, and what the timer's effects are (including duration).

 

2) The only "useful" impact of any strategic component in the game is to make your choices have consequences. Implementing anything in the game can have "unintentional negative consequences", and that's why you design and balance the game. Obviously, the more complex the game is, the harder it's going to be to make everything cohesive. You're basically saying that the devs shouldn't try to implement complex mechanics, because they are very tricky to implement well.

 

Crap, man. Every time I've been setting my alarm to wake up in the morning, it's been waking up everyone else in the entire world! Why did no one tell me before now!

 

Also, thanks for not actually disagreeing with me here. I'm pretty sure it was unintentional, but it makes me feel better. ^_^

 

Everything you're saying is based on the assumption that any sort of long term timer will a) force players to take one optimal path through the game, or else b) the timer will have no point and add nothing to the game.

 

See Fallout epiphany above. Totally got it. Thanks again!

 

LOL at you not being able to imagine how failing at some task could matter without effectively ending the game right then and there. What you say only makes sense if you assume the game will be completely linear, which is exactly what we want to avoid with long term timers. You apparently have no ****ing clue what complexity means (everything is all black and white to you idiots).

 

Yes! That! Sorry, I couldn't find the words before, but I was trying to say that I just can't comprehend how having multiple outcomes to anything in the game could be beneficial! I don't even understand the concept of having more than one weapon in the whole game. I mean, if you equipped an axe instead of a sword, shouldn't the game be over?

 

And you can stop pretending like I haven't been pwning you from the very start.

 

*sigh*... It was worth a shot. I mean, I just wake up every day hoping that ONE day I'll make it to the Forum National Finals. Coach is gonna have me running drills 'til I'm 50... -___-

Edited December 6, 2012 by Lephys

[Game_Exile]

You realize anyone can just click to page 6, read the posts there, and see that you are completely full of ****, don't you? "Fallout Epiphany" my ass, liar. Remember what I was actually responding to? Let me remind you.

Because, if a city falling to a siege can happen just because you didn't even go to that city in time, then it CAN'T have been integral to the over-arching story that you be at that siege.

Of course it can be integral to the story. Unless you need to have some kind of completely linear story that your actions have no impact on. Lol, moron.

I'll never understand how people can be so comically false.

[Lephys]

You realize anyone can just click to page 6, read the posts there, and see that you are completely full of ****, don't you? "Fallout Epiphany" my ass, liar. Remember what I was actually responding to? Let me remind you.

Because, if a city falling to a siege can happen just because you didn't even go to that city in time, then it CAN'T have been integral to the over-arching story that you be at that siege.

Of course it can be integral to the story. Unless you need to have some kind of completely linear story that your actions have no impact on. Lol, moron.

I'll never understand how people can be so comically false.

 

*shrug*. When in Rome, u_u...

[Dragoonlordz]

I prefer no main plot timers at all. The sort that result in "must complete the game in x amount of ingame days or real world days" as least not on the main story. Timers seem to be the new 'fad' with games these days but that doesn't make it a good one. Some side quests I do not mind having a timer but not many should use such and must both make sense to that quest and not merely exist to make it harder.

Edited December 6, 2012 by Dragoonlordz

[Michael_Galt]

I must say- even with all the flames and personal attacks, this is actually pretty interesting. I truly hope the developers are reading this (and putting all sorts of timers in).

 

Do I think it would be more difficult to pull off? Yes, but I feel that there have been relatively few CRPGs that REALLY have any sense of urgency to them where it actually matters IN GAME, whether you do something or not. Typically, you get some sort of lip-service (literally, as in, other characters referencing things you did), but you don't have actual game-playing impacts. I want things to actually alter in game based off of your decisions, so it feels more dynamic. And I want to be able to see the effects of my actions (or inaction) before the final credits.

 

Again, when I'm talking about timers, I'm not talking simple "pass/fail" dynamics. I do think there should be some of those, but there should be a whole series of intermediate steps inbetween (unless it is something like- "Unless you rescue her within the next 2 days, she'll be sacrificed by the cult!"). I'm talking, is "harder/easier", less/more reward, factions/groups/individuals amassing/lossing power. Triggers for events. I think most of these timers have to be based on when you find an area/location, or are told about it, because "global" timers seem too stark and boring. Global would probably be appropriate for some large plot types of things, but probably not much else.