Review VD holds forth on Dragon Age Quest Design

[denizsi]

If the characters in the game made mention of a time limit and urgency, but without a poster in your journal "screaming" at you "you have x days left!", as to mislead the player into thinking that the mentioned time limit might not be all that important, and then opening up a new mini-series of quests because the player missed the deadline, might be a nice way of doing it. It would be an interesting experiment at the very least.

 

[Arem]

Bad feeling because

David Gaider is your favourite developer and has been advertising AoD?

 

[Forest Dweller]

Fouche?

Be of good cheer, I is here.

About the fact that the option to go fetch the Mage Circle to help at Redcliffe doesn't result in any consequences due to time lost :

I do agree that it would have been better if you'd arrived back at the castle and the Demon had killed a few more NPCs thanks to you "playing it safe" and wasting time.

HOWEVER.

A number of times in SoW development I've toyed with the idea of time-constrained questlines. It makes sense, when designing a quest, that if an NPC says "you need to do something urgently!" that wandering off and fucking around will fail the quest or have serious consequences.

But, each and every time I've polled people, both online and friends, the response is almost universal hatred for the concept. Even the people who like the idea only do so half-heartedly, with caveats. They hate that feeling of constraint.

I'm still going to implement it to a degree in SoW (Not anywhere as much as I was going to), but I can understand why Bioware didn't at all. You may say "it's shitty design", but it's not so much shitty as simply unrealistic, gamey. If 90% of gamers hate playing under those constraints, it is perfectly logical/good design not to force it upon them, just as you don't force people to eat and shit in games.

Your primary design goal is an enjoyable gameplay experience for your player. I think time limits can work, but that doesn't mean you can just universally claim the lack thereof is bad design or a design oversight. Clearly Bioware are aware of that kind of design, as demonstrated by the fact that Lothering is obliterated when you leave, incomplete quests or not. But they chose not to do it with Redcliffe. I'd guess it was probably a conscious choice on their part.

God no, don't listen to those fucks. People who hate time limits just don't respect C&C as much as they should. I bet they also reload after every dialogue option to try to find the "best" way of resolving something. Do you really want to make a game for such softcore pussies?

Also, the comparison to eating and shitting just isn't valid. It doesn't have anything to do with NPC interaction, unlike the time limit things. Because, like you said, it is simply assumed that the player character will do those things. But it can't be assumed that you hurried for a quest when you in fact didn't.

Also:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bMQAOKeUc-A

And aside from that, what about your knowledge skills? Last I checked, you were having progression on those based on time spent studying in the actual game world. You even said that you would need time-sensitive quests in order for you to balance it correctly. So what happened? Having just a "few" quests like that won't work; people will just powergame and read up during quests that aren't like that, which sounds like the majority. You need to have substantial time limits for that to work correctly. In fact, I'd say you need some kind of time limit for EVERY quest, except for those where it doesn't make sense.

 

[GarfunkeL]

Even most resident Fallout fans here hated the time limit in Fallout, even though it was a very relaxed limit and you could finish the game multiple times in that time. People are so primitive and underdeveloped, mere mention of "time limit" is enough to make them feel constricted.

NO NO NO. Who Fallout-fan hated the 150 days limit? I've often read that claim but I've never found it to be true - not here and certainly not in NMA.

Damn, the 150 days awesome! It made me constantly worry about the vault and the time it took me to travel between towns. I was more than willing to doom Necropolis to die of thirst because I just had no time to dick around trying to get my repair skill up. MY PEOPLE WERE ABOUT TO DIE!

Having 180 seconds to run out of a dungeon is stupid time limit gimmick. Forcing the player to either clear the demon presence in Tower RIGHT NOW or having to surrender the whole place for 'Cleansing' is a good time limit.

 

[Ch1ef]

^TRUE

 

[Vault Dweller]

Bad feeling because

David Gaider is your favourite developer and has been advertising AoD?

The article contains detailed examples and analysis. While it's tempting to dismiss the article because Dave Gaider said something good about AoD, you only have three options:

- claim that the examples are made up and no such options exist in the actual game
- claim that these examples are at best mediocre and that the conclusion that the quest design is great is far-fetched
- accept the examples and the conclusion

 

[Naked Ninja]

God no, don't listen to those fucks. People who hate time limits just don't respect C&C as much as they should.

I've polled hardcore people who like C&C. They just don't like the time limits. It's the psychology of the thing, I'm not going to hand-wave it off as "only pussies care" when the evidence shows that this isn't the case.

Do you really want to make a game for such softcore pussies?

They aren't generally softcore, they just prefer not to have the time limits. People have different tastes in different aspects of RPGs. :shrug:

Also, the comparison to eating and shitting just isn't valid. It doesn't have anything to do with NPC interaction, unlike the time limit things. Because, like you said, it is simply assumed that the player character will do those things. But it can't be assumed that you hurried for a quest when you in fact didn't.

The point wasn't whether there was NPC interaction or not, the point was that "realism" isn't a good enough motivation if people don't like how the game design decision affects their gameplay experience.

A lot of people vehemently dislike time constraints hanging over their heads. You can explain why it is better for C&C quite reasonably, but they still resent it. They want the freedom to dick about without feeling time pressure.

Like I said, I personally would have liked if the choice of going for the mage circle had negative consequences, putting you in a "choice of the lesser evil" scenario, and that is the design I'd have used if that scenario had been in SoW, regardless. But I can also understand that maybe they felt that players wouldn't like the sense of time constraint imposed by that.

And it doesn't change the fact that that quest line has a lot of very cool roleplay options and they did a good job on it. As someone has said, you can go over the questlines in any RPG and point out missed opportunities. Dev resources are limited, so if you're going to cut an option, the one that a large segment of your playerbase will dislike is the best bet.

Also:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bMQAOKeUc-A

Bandwidth in SA is expensive, please summarize the vid for me.

And aside from that, what about your knowledge skills? Last I checked, you were having progression on those based on time spent studying in the actual game world. You even said that you would need time-sensitive quests in order for you to balance it correctly. So what happened?

Yes, I would need time sensitive quests to make that mechanic work, and the entire main plot would need to be time sensitive. Since I realized and accepted that most people hate that idea, I've abandoned it. It just isn't going to fly. You have to listen to feedback on your ideas or you get blinded by your personal enthusiasm for them.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Why pretend to put it in then ? If it's so unpopular, they/you could just ditch it altogether instead of implementing those false time constraints.

Why put dinner table models in a game when no one, NPC or player, ever has dinner? What about toilet models?

It's a theme thing.

Exactly.

NPC dialogues have to be realistic even if the mechanics aren't there. Pretty much like being told to rest when your characters don't need any rest or being offered a drink which is a useless item in your inventory.

First, when you are told about the Circle, you are told that it's only a day away, which makes the trip logical.

O.K., that is a good starting point. But does it make the whole trip logical?

- When you enter the circle grounds, you're presented with another quest with even bigger urgency
- The quest that brought you to the tower in the first place is not ever referenced once!
- CoM option totally removes the C&C from the quest. It screams "bad option 1.) bad option 2.) the right option" at you.

- there is nothing wrong with being presented with another quest at the Circle as this quest doesn't send you away. You need their help, but you need to help them first since you're already there.
- should it be? when you arrive it's clear that the circle has bigger problems at the moment.
- CoM option's purpose is to provide you with another way of entering the Fade, not to generate game-changing consequences. It would have been nice if it did, but it doesn't mean it's a bad option.

Not every option should and can have consequences. For example, the beach house in Bloodlines is often used as an example of multiple choices and the fact that none of these options had any consequences has never generated any discussions. Same with planting a bug or recording a conversation with Gizmo.

Second, for it to "break immersion for an experienced gamer", all other games should handle the effect of long trips on quests better, which they don't.

Oh come on, even Sengoku Rance handles effects of sidetracking better (even if it means just a game over screen). It has been done well in games, can be done well in games and is no fucking rocket science either.

I don't play JRPGs, so I can't comment. Feel free to read my comment as all other PC RPGs. As for "has been done well in games", you'd have to explain it and provide examples.

I know it's not rocket science, I know it can be done (we did it in AoD), but the fact remains that in 95% of PC RPG time stands still and you can finish urgent tasks 6 months later.

I simply do not understand how you can find the quest design in DA laudable. Maybe if you compare it to other recent games, yes they've made a good effort. But the state of recent 'RPG' games is not much to celebrate.

There are very few games that offer the same number of options. If you disagree, prove me wrong.

I've not yet finished all the main quests, but so far most of them have had very unsatisfactionary designs. You are presented with seemingly multiple paths, but in the end the result is very similar no matter what you choose, or the right choice is made too obvious.

Examples?

It seems that in many quests the designers simply quit halfway through. Mild spoiler on trivial side quest follows:

For example, in the wood elf camp there is that one love-struck moron who gives you a quest involving his loved one. So, since I've put all those points into persuade, I proceed to persuade the chick to taste my hyper weapon in the haystack.

So now I have only the option of lying to the guy that she doesn't love him or telling him that I boof'd the broad. If I tell him the truth, he runs to the woods and the quest ends.

In its current state the quest screams "irrelevant side quest" all over. O.K., it is a trivial side quest...

It IS a trivial side quest. However, if you help him, he gives you a book and you can give this book to the hermit who only trades for unusual items.

Optional, additional content of no value.

And what game doesn't have it?

Did you enjoy delivering a meal to Smitty in FO2? Pixel-hunting for a meaningless book someone borrowed and lost? Giving the ghost its locket back? Getting Gladys her ring back in Arcanum? Looking for another ring in the sewers? Delivering editor's check? Bringing a present to a guy's wife to keep his family life smooth?

Come on. Let's not invent imaginary standards.

 

[hiver]

But I understand the reason, and think more people would complain if actual logical time limits were imposed on quests in RPGs, based on what evidence I've seen.

Not true.

The worst thing a designer can do about this feature is think in extremes. Either having time dependant quests or NOT, just across the board.
Thats silly.

There must be a mix according to each situation.
The situation itself, the layout of a quest or a mission or the story must dictate is it time dependant quest or not. Not some arbitrarily imposed decision.

I've polled hardcore people who like C&C. They just don't like the time limits. It's the psychology of the thing, I'm not going to hand-wave it off as "only pussies care" when the evidence shows that this isn't the case.

Youve polled too little and too few, or you worded your polls so they remind players of worst examples of such mechanics.

A lot of people vehemently dislike time constraints hanging over their heads. You can explain why it is better for C&C quite reasonably, but they still resent it. They want the freedom to dick about without feeling time pressure.

This line of reasoning is completely unnecessary if you stop thinking in extremes and develop the quests with attention to their inner logic - which creates a good rythm of quests through whole of the game.

Some time dependent because its reasonable to expect that.- like, for example:
*Your own example of how to handle going for Mage Tower
*getting involved in a kidnapping of someone
*settling things before two or more parties before things escalate

Or quets that in other ways force you to do something without wandering off AND quests that allow you to take a breather from the main campaign in a logical way.

So you have both. Tension of doing something that needs to be done, being "in the moment" or "in the plot" and parts of the game where youre free to explore and click around.

And you have engaging quests AND free roaming without either becoming boring or repetitive.


I really dont see what is the problem here.

 

[Naked Ninja]

This line of reasoning is completely unnecessary if you stop thinking in extremes and develop the quests with attention to their inner logic

Like stating that catastrophe will strike your home Vault in X days if you don't get the water purifier chip back to them in time? Isn't that a perfectly logical and valid time-limit?

I'm sorry, but evidence suggests that you're mistaken. Even when the time limits are logically consistent AND very generous, people still hate them. Even many of the so-called "hardcore". They just don't like that feeling of it hanging over them while they explore the game.

I really dont see what is the problem here.

Because you aren't part of the group who dislikes timed quests. Which is fine, but there are people who do and their opinion is also valid. I'm not designing in a vacuum, so feedback must be considered, all feedback, not just that which I personally like. I don't have to listen to that feedback, this isn't design-by-committee, but simply waving away strong evidence that a lot of people will hate a certain design is foolish.

 

[Volourn]

You should make the game you want, and don't worry about haters, because as you said yourself you can't please everyone anyways.

That said, I am personally all for time limits. If someone isn't, they don't want REAL C&C.

 

[Naked Ninja]

I don't change my design simply to please other people, but I do listen to and consider the reasons behind feedback. To do otherwise would be foolish.

 

[hiver]

That example is from how old now game?

And what so inconsistent with it? It is a bit precise but you can calculate how long some finite reserves of water can last minus plus few days.

If you talking merely about reception of that quest - actually there isnt that much people around who are so bothered with it.
Most of those are complaining out of wrong conclusions and because game doesnt provide enough clear leads in the beginning, and first vault turns out to be false location.

Also, i continuously witness people complaining or ridiculing about overarching quest lines dont move on regardless of how much time you spend doing other stuff - regardless how ridiculous it actually is.

So if youre listening to vox populi...?

/

And most of my post was about not thinking in extremes and designing games that either have time dependent quests or dont. From the start - as a part of the design.

-edited typo

 

[Naked Ninja]

That example is from how old now game?

How is that relevant?

And what so inconsistent with it?

Eh? I never said it was inconsistent. I said it was logical and generous. But many people still disliked it, purely because of the time pressure they felt while playing.

actually there isnt that much people around who are so bothered with it.

Really? Not the impression I get, generally.

So if youre listening to vox populi...?

I'm listening to feedback and making decisions based on a combination of feedback and my own opinion. This is a good thing.

And most of my post was about not thinking in extremes and designing games that either have time dependent quests or dont. From the start - as a part of the design.

I understand your post.

 

[hiver]

How is that relevant?

Since it worked so good or almost good way back then why cant we have improved versions now?

Eh? I never said it was inconsistent. I said it was logical and generous. But

Just covering angles.

Really? Not the impression I get, generally.

Its always two or three people per some long thread. Its just that they scream more about it, like any malcontent does so it creates the effect of a mob - while it isnt.

I'm listening to feedback and making decisions based on a combination of feedback and my own opinion. This is a good thing.

Definetly.
Your design factually goes along "not going into extremes with it" , from what youre saying.

I understand your post.

:does the secret Illuminati sign waving:

 

[Brother None]

I'm sorry, but evidence suggests that you're mistaken. Even when the time limits are logically consistent AND very generous, people still hate them. Even many of the so-called "hardcore". They just don't like that feeling of it hanging over them while they explore the game.

But is that a problem of method or concept? Of presentation or mechanics? Perhaps you're correct to dismiss it out of hand, but it seems a little easy to me.

Take Fallout's time-limit, which - AFAIK - wasn't that disliked, it basically ticks down to a game over screen, and it does so visibly and intrusively whenever you bring up your PipBoy.

Conclusion? Timers suck. That's one conclusion. Or:

1. Timers with unilateral, "hard" consequences suck.

2. Timers that are in your face suck.

So what's it about then? Subtlety, perhaps? Make a timer not a part of failing at a quest, but of doing a quest less well*, and don't necessarily inform the gamer of that? Eyyyyy...

* The idea of "failing" or "succeeding" in a quest is a bit of a throwback anyway. Certainly succeeding should not be defined as succeeding 100%. A quest like Redcliffe should be about choosing the success with the most acceptable losses to you (the child, the mother, or the innocents the demon will kill while you're away).

 

[Naked Ninja]

But is that a problem of method or concept? Of presentation or mechanics? Perhaps you're correct to dismiss it out of hand, but it seems a little easy to me.

I didn't dismiss it out of hand, I dismissed it quite reluctantly. I also wondered if it was presentation or suchlike. Eventually I concluded that it was simply that people didn't like feeling time-pressured, based on the responses I received.

1. Timers with unilateral, "hard" consequences suck.

I don't actually think it's how hard the consequences are. It's a psychological thing, the feeling it creates when playing. I think that even if the consequences aren't particularly punishing, the sense that they are being "hurried along" at a pace not of their own choosing is what gets them. The sense I got was never really a hatred of the consequence as much as a resentment at not being able to set their own pace.

2. Timers that are in your face suck.

I have no proof of this, but based on what I've seen of the reason people hate the time pressures, I'd feel safe betting half my next salary that they'd doubly hate it if the timer was hidden.

Either it would come as a surprise which generates outrage, or the lack of certainty as to how much time they had left would drive them to greater haste/more resentment.

Personally I think the place that timed quests work best in is simulation/sandbox games, since the game world is creating new content on the fly it doesn't feel like you are losing out on some crafted story content or whatnot.


(For anyone interested, the new system for SoW is similar to AoD, quests come in two categories, long-term and short term. Long-term quests have no time limit. Short-term quests also don't technically have a time limit, but they are failed if you leave the region that you're currently in (a region is a hub, a collection of zones, say a city and its outskirts, which don't require any significant travelling time to go between).

This is an abstraction, a compromise between allowing a player to explore the region at their own pace without letting them fuck off halfway across the continent and the quest still being frozen in time when they get back. Technically, you could sleep for days in a region and it wouldn't affect the quest. But go anywhere requiring travel time and the quest moves onto the "failed time constraint" phase.

The Redcliffe quest would have been short-term in SoW.)

A quest like Redcliffe should be about choosing the success with the most acceptable losses to you (the child, the mother, or the innocents the demon will kill while you're away).

I do agree with you, though I can see how a time constraint on fetching the mage circle might have annoyed a percentage of players. Honestly, a good consequence would have been if the Mage Circle got hardcore on the kid and made him Tranquil in front of his mother, like they do with any other apprentice who is a risk for demonic possession. That would have been great, as by doing the "right" thing you have doomed a fairly innocent child to become a vegetable. Nicely grim/morally grey.

I am not universal in my praise of DA, and one of the issues it suffers from is it fails at being anywhere near as Dark/Grim as Bioware would have liked. Far from something like the Witcher. The Ashes quest with the monk is better, but there were a number of places where I felt an opportunity for grimdark was lost. Still, they put in many, many choices into DA, even despite the tons of voice acting, so I think it's unfair to be overly critical. If DA doesn't stand up as at least a "decent" RPG to a fan of the genre, then I think that person has created artificially high standards in their own mind, probably based on nostalgia, at least in part.

 

[hiver]

It still seems to me you are seeing it as a system that needs to be applied to a game as a whole.

Why not just go by situations?

- Say youre involved yourself in a kidnapping case. Youre to deliver the money or somehow save the kid of some noble. kidnappers sent a message to deliver the money in day or two, just for example, to a specific spot.

Now, should that be a timed quest or not?

What should happen if you go galivating around for days and days and fail to do anything else?
Kid should turn up dead somewhere and you blamed for it.
Wont get paid and have further repercussions with either the law or that noble - privately. etc

Who would complain about it being timed?

Honestly, a good consequence would have been if the Mage Circle got hardcore on the kid and made him Tranquil in front of his mother, like they do with any other apprentice who is a risk for demonic possession. That would have been great, as by doing the "right" thing you have doomed a fairly innocent child to become a vegetable. Nicely grim/morally grey.

Actually that would have been more then acceptable solution. Good idea.
Though it wouldnt have any direct consequences on Arl or his army etc.

(For anyone interested, the new system for SoW is similar to AoD, quests come in two categories, long-term and short term.

Hm, it certainly makes some thing simpler and at least it doesnt allow going away from local quests too far, but i would still like to see some care and consideration applied for each individual quest in this regard.

 

[Davaris]

If the characters in the game made mention of a time limit and urgency, but without a poster in your journal "screaming" at you "you have x days left!", as to mislead the player into thinking that the mentioned time limit might not be all that important, and then opening up a new mini-series of quests because the player missed the deadline, might be a nice way of doing it. It would be an interesting experiment at the very least.

This is what I was thinking. Instead of shutting the game down, something new should have happened, like a battle for the last remaining water in the vault, or people deciding to leave the vault and look for the nearest settlement. It wouldn't surprise me if the Fallout devs wanted to do that, but ran out of time.

 

[Balthamael]

Why not just go by situations?

- Say youre involved yourself in a kidnapping case. Youre to deliver the money or somehow save the kid of some noble. kidnappers sent a message to deliver the money in day or two, just for example, to a specific spot.

Now, should that be a timed quest or not?

What should happen if you go galivating around for days and days and fail to do anything else?
Kid should turn up dead somewhere and you blamed for it.
Wont get paid and have further repercussions with either the law or that noble - privately. etc

Who would complain about it being timed?

Depending on what you do in the game you could easily end up with number of this kind of quests in your log at the same time, and find yourself unable to finish all of them within the time constraints. Choices and consequences, you might say, but I am sure not insignificant portion of players would be annoyed. Myself certainly.

 

[hiver]

No you couldnt find yourself unable to finish them "all".
Why do you think they should overlap in such a stupid way?

As i said, time constrained quests would be done only where appropriate as example ive given. There is no need to force that on other quests.

With a little effort they can be removed from one another, or in some cases allowed to overlap - intentionally - if it would raise gameplay quality.
To change pace and build up pressure.
After all, why not having to deal with two things in one night. In one location or area, one city etc.
Plenty of time.

After all, what if game follows "quests arise from quests" philosophy instead of being peppered with them randomly?

 

[Brother None]

I do agree with you, though I can see how a time constraint on fetching the mage circle might have annoyed a percentage of players.

Percentages aside, this is essentially what I'm talking about: I care not for "hard" time constraints with binary consequence. I do care for the game world adapting to my choices. This quest is a good example: there's no need to make a time limit once the player decides to head out, simply account for his time gone, regardless of how long it is but assuming it's just back-and-forth between the tower, and kill some innocents. Ideal? Hardly. Better? Yes.

Say you're sent out to rescue a maiden from a necromancer. You can do it immediately, and you'll be able to save her. Or you can faff about, and not necessarily with "faffing" being counted in time, but indeed in something as simple as AoD's "leave area counts as faffing" mechanic, and then you'll have a hard time saving her since she's a banshee.

But in other quests, like - I dunno - a criminal gang threatening to take over a town, it makes sense to have a sequence of time-coded events that will be triggered until you - the player - interferes. In such ways, timed events will always have their function. You just have to look for 'em.

Heck, what's more, I think time restraints ties in as an annoyance with choice and consequence. Call it "relative obstructions" vs "frictionless gameplay". The ideal frictionless game says you should be able to enjoy every part of the game in one go, with one character, because that's easier. And on a basal level, that's preferable, since it's obstacle-free. But throwing up relative obstructions builds quality of gameplay through challenge - that doesn't always mean it's fun, but it does mean that - provided it is done well - it can add to the gameplay experience. And this goes from difficult combat to hard choice 'n consequences to timed events. I would be wary of following polled opinions on such topics.

I'd feel safe betting half my next salary that they'd doubly hate it if the timer was hidden.

I never said it should be hidden, I said it shouldn't be in your face.

Seriously, what is it with the Codex that makes everyone think in these absolute dichotomies on design questions that are so obviously placed on a sliding scale. "What, you say it shouldn't be in your face, SO YOU'RE SAYING IT SHOULD BE HIDDEN, THAT'S STUPID, NO ONE LIKES THAT, STOP LYING, ROOFLES"
(paraphrasing)

If DA doesn't stand up as at least a "decent" RPG to a fan of the genre, then I think that person has created artificially high standards in their own mind, probably based on nostalgia, at least in part.

Oh, DA is a great cRPG. Got my vote for GB's RPGotY, assuming nothing comes out of left field to claim it (hey, it's happened before).

It bored me to tears, though.

 

[Naked Ninja]

It still seems to me you are seeing it as a system that needs to be applied to a game as a whole.

Not true. I'm simply pointing out to you that even in Fallout, with a single timed quest, presented in an internally consistent manner and with generous time buffers, people still don't like it. I have not seen evidence that "people only hate it if it's all or nothing". I've seen evidence that they just generally hate timed quests, even if those timed quests stand alone.

Why not just go by situations?

I've explained why. Your scenario is logical and I completely see your point Hiver. I'm just saying that I don't think the hatred for timed quests is based on the internal logic of the quest, I think it is based on how it affects the feel of the gameplay.

But in other quests, like - I dunno - a criminal gang threatening to take over a town, it makes sense to have a sequence of time-coded events that will be triggered until you - the player - interferes. In such ways, timed events will always have their function. You just have to look for 'em.

The problem is the meta layer, the gameplay. People don't like the feeling that they can unknowingly trip some hidden code script on day X which causes a fail condition. The fear of "failing a quest because I didn't realize I'd missed the deadline" is what makes them dislike the timed quests because it dis-empowers their choices. If the quest specifically says "If you go away now, there will be consequences" then it is cool, because you've indicated to the player what his choice is and empowered him to make it at the decision point.

But obscured time constraints don't sit well, especially longer ones, because the player doesn't know at each step along the way if he is making a choice (or a sequence of choices) which is going to end up causing him to "fail" down the line. This anxiety causes them to rush, to play it safe, which is as odds with one of core drives in games, the explorer drive. They want to explore over there, but fear they can't because there is an unknown amount of the game still to do so they can't risk the time. It creates a subtle resentment of the timer.

Heck, what's more, I think time restraints ties in as an annoyance with choice and consequence. Call it "relative obstructions" vs "frictionless gameplay". The ideal frictionless game says you should be able to enjoy every part of the game in one go, with one character, because that's easier. And on a basal level, that's preferable, since it's obstacle-free. But throwing up relative obstructions builds quality of gameplay through challenge - that doesn't always mean it's fun, but it does mean that - provided it is done well - it can add to the gameplay experience. And this goes from difficult combat to hard choice 'n consequences to timed events. I would be wary of following polled opinions on such topics.

As mentioned, I didn't simply follow polled opinions. But I did analyze the responses I was getting, compared them to my own experience and through about them in terms of an understanding of the meta layers of gameplay experience, what drives various types of players.

I'm not saying the player should have a frictionless experience. I'm saying they enjoy the gameplay more when don't feel like time is constraining their ability to explore all their available options. There are many ways to do gameplay constraints, of which time limits are simply one of the possible forms. I am seeing evidence that it is a risky form to use and am focusing on other forms.

I never said it should be hidden, I said it shouldn't be in your face.

Seriously, what is it with the Codex that makes everyone think in these absolute dichotomies on design questions that are so obviously placed on a sliding scale. "What, you say it shouldn't be in your face, SO YOU'RE SAYING IT SHOULD BE HIDDEN, THAT'S STUPID, NO ONE LIKES THAT, STOP LYING, ROOFLES"
(paraphrasing)

Don't get excited. I'm simply going with the assumption that our hypothetical players are intelligent. You can either tell them "you have limited time to do this" or you don't. How would you make it "not in your face" in a way that didn't trigger the time anxiety? You have to indicate to them that it is happening or we can consider it "hidden", which is what my response was about. It may not be a giant timer on their screen or in their journal, but one assumes anyone with a brain would notice when told they have limited time, yes?

And I'd say that a player aware of the time limit hanging over them but without a direct way of checking exactly how much time is left would be even more annoyed.

Perhaps I'm simply missing some way of handling this? If it isn't obscured like I've indicated then how would it be considered "not in your face"? Could you explain exactly how you would go about making it subtle without an intelligent player immediately realizing "oh crap, better hustle or I'm gonna miss the deadline" and feeling time pressured?

Oh, DA is a great cRPG. Got my vote for GB's RPGotY, assuming nothing comes out of left field to claim it (hey, it's happened before).

It bored me to tears, though.

Completely fair. Vince loves DA for the C&C, I like it but feel the generic setting/plot let it down a fair bit, and there is too much combat/the character system makes combat a bit repetitive.

But I'm aware that the "issue" there mainly lies with me, I've got strong explorer streak, both for setting and story, and I've seen too many of that setting and plot type to feel truly excited by it. If I was 10 years younger and still excited by tolkienesque fantasy, it would be a stand-out example. It is leagues better in gameplay than Morrowind, but MW will stand out in my mind more in the future simply because I truly loved exploring the setting, I felt that wonder of exploring something new for the first time. DA feels like well-worn territory.

If anything, DA has been valuable in convincing me to expand on some of the more fantastic or unusual setting ideas in SoW, in an effort not to fall into the same stale, generic fantasy feel.

 

[Derper]

It IS a trivial side quest. However, if you help him, he gives you a book and you can give this book to the hermit who only trades for unusual items.

Optional, additional content of no value.

And what game doesn't have it?

Did you enjoy delivering a meal to Smitty in FO2? Pixel-hunting for a meaningless book someone borrowed and lost? Giving the ghost its locket back? Getting Gladys her ring back in Arcanum? Looking for another ring in the sewers? Delivering editor's check? Bringing a present to a guy's wife to keep his family life smooth?
Come on. Let's not invent imaginary standards.

Fuck you

 

[hiver]

Not true. I'm simply pointing out to you that even in Fallout, with a single timed quest, presented in an internally consistent manner and with generous time buffers, people still don't like it. I have not seen evidence that "people only hate it if it's all or nothing". I've seen evidence that they just generally hate timed quests, even if those timed quests stand alone.

Maybe the problem arises because it a "main quest" there.
And, im fairly certain that most complaints about it are created by game not providing enough clues to go on by - which leaves players feeling lost and worried about spending too much time on side quests.

In my example im talking about local quests and sidequests, though i feel even the main quest should be time constrained at some points, where its logical, but with general modular design where you could reach points of development through the main story that allow "free time" for exploring and such - rather then having one long main quest that just pauses while you do other things.

I've explained why. Your scenario is logical and I completely see your point Hiver. I'm just saying that I don't think the hatred for timed quests is based on the internal logic of the quest, I think it is based on how it affects the feel of the gameplay.

That may be true, but i dont think its just some blind hate.
I think it would be much more valuable to find out why people hate some timed quest specifically.

Also, as ive said, i see a lot of hate for non-timed quests that logically should have some constraint, especially if those are main quests, like Oblivion one.
Again, problem is more in its execution then just the main concept, or idea of being or not time dependent itself.

Just to add, i agree with BN that timed quests should not have simple binary consequence at all times - rather only where situation demands it.
And even then it should have further consequences for the player.