thoughts:
- A time limit entails a set amount of time prior to its elapsing. The obvious outcome is that the player needs be selective, critical and so on. But in itself, that also entails a certain hierarchical form from a developing side, since some possible options need by default (see time limit) be more beneficial than others. Be it in story progression, lore, character, or inventory/equipment management. If so, why bother adding superficial and shallow extras when (assuming it is them that are chosen rather than the 'good' ones) the developers would only be tarnishing the game's quality in the eyes of the player? If not, why take the time and resources to implement elements that really -are- of an interest and equal a value, only to force the player to skip them? You did after all force him to 'hurry hurry', leaving chunks of your budget behind, literally unseen. Not particularly flawless a logic. Prior to posting remarks such as those in the Colin McComb's interview, do reconsider how it is -exactly- this lack of logic that leads to what most of you deem a bad implementation. Rather a vain effort, trying to implement a fallacy logically.
- In a large, open, mutliple outcomes scenario done right, a big segment of the immersion comes from reactivity, C&C (and i don't mean dialogue, or at least not solely), and a terrain realistic enough to offer many a path (i.e. exploring, can't do that with a gun pressed in one's head) towards one destination. Ideally, said terrain is designed such so as to enrich the entire setting rather than pose as a mere basis. If, taking a pause here, one scripts less but more important side quests, emphasis on -side-, one could envision a timing element. Or any other form of pressure. Both because the player has the choice to circumvent it, and mostly because the player is being made aware that said pressure is a side effect of 'x' sidequest, rather than a developing decision to haunt him for the rest of the game. Which, had it been so, he would only experience that game in part, since, well, someone decided to pressure him. See above. Emphasis here on reactivity of the environment, of a reflection of one's actions -on- the terrain. Hero's story is but one story within it, the world flows.
- In a linear, story-driven scenario, where choice is restricted to the player's behaving/C&C through his character and is of an immediate outcome (unlike an open world, there will be no 'going back to x area' to see the outcome of your actions), it could work, provided that the notion of 'choice' is presented in such a way so as for the player to -understand- that nothing is left out content-wise. That returning to the game and rolling a different character, the difference will be evident solely in the flow of the story as forced by his own actions. There will be no concrete difference within the gaming world. Emphasis here on player's history/story development, zero or minimal reflection of one's actions -on- the terrain. Hero's story is the only story, the world is a passive medium for it to unravel.
Yet another issue with timed/pressured games as released so far arises at this point. Just how long can such a game last. And what kind of a budget and writers (as money need not always relate quality) are necessary to continue re-enforcing the pressure element without losing the player's interest in the story. Or degrading its quality.
For some of you, the obvious answer will entail something with water chips, certain altars of gaming gods and so on. I personally fail to see anything of worth in the way it was implemented. If i am allowed to continue playing -after- i delivered it, why bother in the first place...i don't want to go back to a desert bandits' cave hoping for some loot when i am weilding a laser minigun. There won't be any loot there for me in the first place. Why go back to anything, when the story is done with, my gear superb. Anyway, i think you get my point. Fallout was an example (in my mind) of a game mixing the two distinctly opposite categories i list above, hence the problem.
