Should P:E have time limits?

[TrashMan]

I didn't say they don't involve timing. I said time efficiency is not what they're about.

 

 

Given that there are RPG'S where time is ticking, I'd say you are proven wrong on that matter.

 

 

 

 

You said you'd prefer time to flow while visiting merchants and healing up, etc. And you've pointed out all these "reality does it, why shouldn't we?" arguments in favor of time always flowing. Why not during dialogue? Can't people die while talking in real life?

 

Actually I'm completely fine wither way with merchants.

And no. Peopele generally won't continue talking and ignore an enemy that is stabing them with a sword.

 

 

 

 

Also, you're completely ignoring my point about pausing. If you can ALWAYS pause the flow of time while you're making decisions and such, then what's the point of a time limit? "You only have 1 in-game hour to get through these battles! So, you'd better decide things quickly, because you're on the clock!... Except when you're paused between every single action you perform!" Hmmm?

 

How can you not get it? Pause is a OUT-OF-WORLD activity that exists FOR THE PLAYER. To go to the john. Take a bite. Answer the phone.

Game time DOES NOT flow while paused. Your character cannot move. Cannot attack. Cannot do anything. Time is stopped in the entire world.

From your characters POW, there was no pause to begin with. Nothing has changed (other than the player had time to go do something game un-related or time to read the dialogue options).

 

Explain to me how does a pause make timed quests poinltess?

 

 

 

Not at all. I don't know why you keep jumping to such wild conclusions. I'm literally arguing that, if you're not going to have a very short, immediate time limit that makes you run like a madman, then there's no reason for it to be a super exact measure of constantly-flowing time. Not in an RPG, with oodles of different routes and orders to things and factors involved in getting from point A to point B. Add in random encounters to travel, that's another thing that makes an actual minute-for-minute time limit silly when it's something like two weeks. If you want to have a two week time limit, then cool. It's not pointless. It's just pointless to measure the hours, instead of just saying "Hey, you can only actively DO so many accomplishing tasks before this 'time limit' is up."

 

I don't see why "hours" would be pointless. Unless you think a random encounter battle is gonna take you an hour to finish.

Besides, didn't I say earlier that very short timers (seconds, minutes) would be on a local basiss - if you're already in the area/map. Those don't have to take into account travel time from different locations or random encounters.

 

 

 

 

With "you have 72 hours to locate such-and-such," it's not testing JUST your ability to get through an isolated situation/dilemma. That time limit's applying to literally everything you're doing. Even stuff that you HAVE to do over the course of 72 hours in the game (like sleep, and fast travel, perform and deliver quests so that you can actually increase skills and defenses and whatnot so that you're not quantifiably incapable of performing further, difficult tasks, buy armor and equipment, etc.). It's way too big of a range, and it defeats the purpose of a time limit actually testing you.

 

It's not to big of a range.

Preferom and deliver quests? IF you're on a timer, leave those for later (unless they are directly on your route)

Sleep? You can take a shorter break or leave it for later if necessary - but in a 72 hour timers, you got plenty of time to rest.

Level? How many levels you think you can get in 72 (in-game) hours? You really think 1 level difference will make a quest phisicly impossible? I don' think so.

Buying armor? Yeah..I can see that taking DAYS.

 

 

 

It's either urgent or it isn't.

 

And then you say you aren't de-ealuing time-constraints. And yet you are. Right there.

 

 

 

Negatory, Ghost Rider. You're skirting "the" point (as in "the point I was making), and substituting in your own point, which you're then pretending is my point. See your version of my point is that HP and spells are the only resource you have. So you just proved that wrong. But my actual point was that HP and spells/abilities are the MAIN resources you have. If the game is designed to regularly be progressed through without ever resting or using any abilities ever again, then what happens when you DO use those things that are built straight into the game? "Oh, I can actually readily afford potions out the wazz, and grenades, and we have such good equipment that I can just passively kill everything to death." Sounds like it's time to turn up the difficulty from "Tutorial" to "actual difficulty" if the game's that easy without resting. "What? Clear out another forest? But we're out of health and abilities! Oh well, let's go, people!"

 

Double-negative there SpraklePuss.

 

Now you are fabricating an argument there. Who said that items and potions are cheap? But they ARE an option. An option that costs you money, an option that you'd normally not rely on that heavily if you were better rested.

That's not balance-breaking. It's basicly the "grenade" option. Something you're saving up for hard situations - and didn't we have coversations earlier about potions and their use? Do you want items and potions to be useless now?

You always tend to construct the most damageing, the absolute worst scenario in your head.

 

And again, you're also assuming that characters low on abilities are total wusses and that you MUST complete this quest.

 

 

 

 

But why? Do you need to be able to do every single side-quest? . Really, though... why does the clock wait on you to stumble into them to start ticking. Like, some kidnappers are waiting, waiting, then, BOOM, you walk through the gates, and they decide to kidnap a girl. Or, they then decide to set fire to a barn. Why did they wait for you? And why should other things NOT-wait on you, but those things should?

 

Oh, I dunno...Maybe because it's a game and simulating an entire world AND having the game generate good quests is currently impossible?

 

Or maybe it has to do with the fact that things that the player can't see, might as well not be there.

 

 

 

 

 

"The longer you dilly-dally, the smaller your chances you will make it." False. Whatever obstacles are there, and whatever distance you must go remain the same. So, the longer you dilly-dally, the closer you approach to an all-but-static threshold, beyond which it will be impossible to reach your destination in time. The only actual variable factor is the player's ability to overcome obstacles with speed.[/qutoe]

 

No, true. Because you're not given a timer. So the player doesn't know if the hostage will be executed in a hour or two hours. So yes, your chances of sucess ARE going down the longer you wait.

 

 

[qutoe]

Yes, these are exclusive outcomes, but not based on choice. They're based on time. You already CHOSE barn. Now time is still an issue.Even aside from non-time-based obstacles (like failure to get around a wall, or failure to not-die to orcs), even if you accomplish all things and get to the barn, you might not get there in time, even though you chose to get there in time.

 

It's based on aboth. And SO WHAT?

The palyers abiltiy to get there, plan and prioritize should also be inmportant.

 

You know, just because I CHOOSE to fight doesn't mean I should automaticly win. Because OBVIOSULY, if I don't my choice is invalidated... because it depends on something besides my choice...like my skill at fighting. And we can't have that.

We can't have a player that CHOSE to go to the barn possibly fail because his comabt tactics were poor and he took too long to defeat the enemies....

[Lephys]

This has obviously transitioned from discussion-related debate to just-plain debate. There's not really any usefulness in continuing it, unfortunately, since you already know all there is to know about RPG design, time limits, and the human psyche.

[JFSOCC]

This has obviously transitioned from discussion-related debate to just-plain debate. There's not really any usefulness in continuing it, unfortunately, since you already know all there is to know about RPG design, time limits, and the human psyche.

This applies to you as well.

[Lephys]

It actually doesn't, but pointing out why would simply spark a whole 'nother pointless debate, so I'm really not worried about it. Think what you will.

[TrashMan]

Well, you could design a game with "faux" timed events - the game would be counting party travels from place to place, not time.

It's basicly a timer without being a timer and a nice middle-ground solution.

 

But personally, I like the flow of time in games. It makes it more immersive, it feels more real.

 

You and I Lephys usually agree on matters, but I guess we were bound to run into something we disagree upon sooner or later.

[Lephys]

Well, you could design a game with "faux" timed events - the game would be counting party travels from place to place, not time.

It's basicly a timer without being a timer and a nice middle-ground solution.

 

But personally, I like the flow of time in games. It makes it more immersive, it feels more real.

 

You and I Lephys usually agree on matters, but I guess we were bound to run into something we disagree upon sooner or later.

In case it doesn't show, I DO value your input on these forums. I think we both get a little passionate about our points, but, this isn't some kind of "no you're wrong and I'm right" scenario. I'm not trying to get to prefer what I prefer. I simply appreciate when what I bring up is acknowledged as something to be considered. A lot of stuff you said actually helped me think about my own points and stance on the matter from different, new angles, and that only helps my understanding upon which to build a more solid stance and make even better points. Doesn't mean I'm flawless. But, I tend to point things out that I see, even if I don't know everything about them. But, it's a bit daunting when it feels like people are just trying to say "you're imagining things," rather than "there's a little more to it than that, but yes, you are seeing something there."

 

I've played games in which the soft time limit was in place, the whole time. You can even still have regular time flow. Honestly, in the long run, you have to go out of your way to actually notice a disconnect. That's why I kept pointing out the nonsensical person who spends eternity (no pun intended) shopping, or rests 800 times before going out of the town after a quest.

 

No, it doesn't HAVE to be done that way, but I think it works quite well. It's all abstracted, to a degree, unless you literally make every single thing in the game have a time limit. Didn't collect those flowers in time? That person couldn't make that concoction, and everyone who needed it died. Didn't get that cat out of the tree in time? It starved to death. Didn't get to the weapons merchant in time? He sold all the good equipment. Etc.

 

Even that wouldn't be "wrong." I just think it would be unnecessarily consta-urgent. Urgency serves a purpose at times. But, at other times it doesn't serve much of one. I think being intelligently selective about when time-passage actually affects thing around you and when it doesn't works very well with an RPG that isn't trying to be a 1:1 simulation of verisimilitudinous real-time life in the game world. That's all. And I think there are reasons for me to think that, and I'm not just whipping it out of thin air, and making all this up. And that doesn't mean that there aren't any reasons to think other methods work, as well.

 

I hope that makes sense, and thanks for the intellectual opposition. I would honestly love to collaborate on types of scenarios that could greatly benefit from ticking timers, and types of scenarios that maybe could benefit more from a bit of abstraction, in the grand scheme of things, instead of butting heads in an "there can be only one!" fashion, because that isn't my intention at all, and I apologize if I've been difficult or made it seem like that. I can try harder not to do that in the future. Like I said, I agreed with you absolutely on the burning barn scenario.

[TrashMan]

When have I ever said "time limits for ALL quests and EVERYWHERE"? I don't recall that being my position.

 

But seriously man.. We're cool.

 

You're apologizing way too much.

[Lephys]

When have I ever said "time limits for ALL quests and EVERYWHERE"? I don't recall that being my position.

 

But seriously man.. We're cool.

 

You're apologizing way too much.

You haven't said that. I didn't intend to suggest that. It just sometimes seems as though instead of simply saying "I see what you're getting at, but here's why I'd say that's not as useful as you'd think/here's a problem you may not have seen" or "I think this is what you're saying, but could you confirm?" or something, you kind of skip straight to the "I'm going to only respond by pointing out what I think are merits in the thing I'M advocating." Almost as if there's only value in one or the other, even though that's not said. And, yes, I admittedly am not the most precise discusser, but I honestly try really hard. I just often think things much more precisely than I realize my words actually convey, and I try to clarify, but sometimes I'm clarifying the wrong thing, or clarifying in an unhelpful way, and then the point becomes even less clear because of how it's read.

 

Anywho, if you ever just aren't picking up what I'm putting down, please, by all means, just ask me. I welcome the help in making my ramblings more interpretable. You can totally call me out on not seeming to make any sense, but if you don't actually say that, and you just say "That's incorrect," then I'm just going to assume I did make sense, and you're simply understanding a different point than I'm actually making. I just don't know what else to do until someone points out otherwise (my brain has weird protocols).

 

I'm glad we're cool, honestly. I don't want us to stop ever having disagreements. I'm just interested in keeping them as focused as possible, whatever part I can play in that.

 

And lastly... I am? Oh... s-sorry... o_o.

[Sabin Stargem]

I think timed quests have to be located in "bottleneck" areas, where you are explicitly told beforehand that you won't be able to do other quests if you enter the new area.  Timed quests are inherently a form of railroad, so they must be carefully designed and presented to the player.

[cirdanx]

I think timed quests have to be located in "bottleneck" areas, where you are explicitly told beforehand that you won't be able to do other quests if you enter the new area.  Timed quests are inherently a form of railroad, so they must be carefully designed and presented to the player.

I agree with the "bottleneck" aspect but not being told before. I think time quests could work in this format of RPG´s but they have to be regional and easy to reach. Let´s say you would be in Twin Elms just after a battle and would be send to D. Bay...that travel takes time, you should rest before, maybe something important with your keep comes up, it would just **** up the play in my opinion. But if, let´s say in Twin Elms you are send to the temple to hinder a murderer, well that can work. If you take to time you fail and have to search for the person, if you make it you can prevent it.

 

Thinks like this can work. But when you have to travel long ways over different zones it becomes a problem, Minsk and Umar Hills quest is one of those kinda annoying examples in BG2 where a compain can run off on his own when you take too much time, which i loved but also hated because it could mess up my personal gameplay flow. If that makes any sense

[Katarack21]

Not a CRPG, but...didn't FF VII have a time limit? I seem to recall if you didn't go finish things when the clock hit 99:99, Sephiroth summoned Meteor and ended the world, right?

[cirdanx]

Not a CRPG, but...didn't FF VII have a time limit? I seem to recall if you didn't go finish things when the clock hit 99:99, Sephiroth summoned Meteor and ended the world, right?

 

I don´t know if it was VII but there was something like this in a FF game, you could still finish it as far as i remember but you got basically told "grazt you finished the game but still lost". Something like that i think but don´t quote me

[RedSocialKnight]

I don't want time limits as such, especially not on plot-central quests. Having to restart Fallout 1 didn't feel immersive, it just felt irritating

 

But I do favor what I call a "quest clock" that would make the choice of which subquests to complete an important one.

 

Under this system, "time" would elapse in the game world after you complete a given number of quests. For example, you're helping a village prepare for attack, and there are a number of ways to do this. Get the old folks to the church or get weapons for the militia etc etc.

 

There might be ten available subquests related to the main quest. You have to complete five of them to progress, but once you've chosen those five, "time's up" -- the village gets attacked, and the subquests you haven't done become unavailable.

 

This adds meaning and urgency to the choices you make -- you won't want to be doing some trivial FedEx quest right before the village burns. But it doesn't impose an annoying real-time countdown that doesn't really make sense in terms of how time passes within the game.

[Volourn]

Yes.