Time Limits

[denizsi]

Good to know that we have so many people here who hold design ideas upheld by Oblivion to such high esteem. I was starting to worry, fearing that gem of a game would be remembered by some and forgotten by others for all the wrong reasons.

 

[Naked Ninja]

So, 28% so far don't really like time limits at all, and the number climbs to 43% if we're talking the main quest.

Like I said, I'm not really judging on pure numbers, but do you see now, Dicksmoker, why I'm not going to? The arguments people have given against are reasonable, they are based on how it affects their experience of the gameplay, not a general desire for things to just be easy. And this is the Codex, the (supposed) bastion of the hardcore. Even here you are looking at about 1 in every 3 or 4 players disliking them.

And this thread is simple theorycrafting. SoW is non-linear, how many do you think would be upset if I missed some play path that results in a little too much time pressure? I'm willing to bet the number would climb.

Also, the only way I'd be able to put in the researching-knowledge-over-time mechanic would be if the main quest is time-constrained. So that ain't gonna happen.

Denizsi, people are giving you valid, logical answers and instead of seeing their point of view you're attempting to sneer them into agreeing with you, playing the "you guys must really like Oblivion then huh?" card. It isn't a compelling argument tactic.

 

[denizsi]

Denizsi, people are giving you valid, logical answers and instead of seeing their point of view you're attempting to sneer them into agreeing with you, playing the "you guys must really like Oblivion then huh?" card. It isn't a compelling argument tactic.

Yes, a single person arguing against constitutes "people" in your fantasy world, who, by the way, provided the excellent arguments in the form of one completely irrelevant answer (minmaxing consequences, which is irrelevant because, well I told why, which you consider to be "sneering people into arguing with myself". great job ) and that the proposal itself would "become THE thing to worry about, above all else", in democratic people of the republic of disagreers' own words (which is too many people to object to obviously, so I should just STFU, I guess), which is also irrelevant because as it is, the players aren't concerned about anything at all to begin with, beyond how to min/max consequences in the form of "how do I get the best meta-bang out of a quest" instead giving the slightest concern to the narrative and how you feel about the developments in the story. And yes, the "Oblivion card". Please explain how it's invalid.

So, if all you're going to contribute is swirl some bullshit instead of joining the discusion and playing the "People are against it! They are too many!" card instead, please stay the fuck out of the discussion.

In case you simply got it all wrong, instead of looking for evil obnoxious motives in my attitude, here is a hint: I don't care about people agreeing or disagreeing with me. I care about discussing mechanics and to hear of valid reasons for either agreeing or disagreeing.

 

[denizsi]

Actually, you know what, I should play this game by your terms, so here it goes:

Options #1 and #2 have a combined 51%, and as the votes for option #3 shows, 14% more are completely ok with time limits as long as it's exclusive to side quests, which means a pressing majority of 65% who are pro-time-limit in one form or another.

So, instead of submitting to your misplaced judgement of people and their expectations, out of whatever motives you have or lack thereof while also pretending to be a martyr by telling people "oh I like time limits myself but the problem is the people! they simply don't want it" and try to sneer everyone into agreeing with the same misplaced judgements you have, which only reflect a minority of 35%, you should try to get some lessons from that majority of 65% if you're so sincere about trying to make your game as best as you could without limiting it to an insignificant niche base or without making it too mainstream against your own ideals.

edit: By the way, those voting options are very reasonably varied to cover most of the ground, which can't be said for most of the serious polls here. So I guess it's a improvement over tolling of some great bells.

 

[Naked Ninja]

You're frothing, calm down.

which means a pressing majority of 65% who are pro-time-limit in one form or another.

I already explained that it isn't about which side or not has the majority, it isn't based on numbers alone. If 1 in 3 people don't like it, I'm not just going to ignore them because 2 in 3 do. I'm going to consider their reasons and whether that feature is worth it as a whole if a certain type of gamer doesn't enjoy it, and I don't want to exclude that type. Gamers come in different types, and I'm not just talking about the artificial 'hardcore/mainstream' divide you guys love to throw around.

if you're so sincere about trying to make your game as best as you could without limiting it to an insignificant niche

Somehow, I doubt that the lack of strong focus on time-constraint based quest design will limit me to an insignificant niche.

 

[denizsi]

You're frothing, calm down.

I already explained that it isn't about which side or not has the majority, it isn't based on numbers alone. If 1 in 3 people don't like it, I'm not just going to ignore them because 2 in 3 do. I'm going to consider their reasons and whether that feature is worth it as a whole if a certain type of gamer doesn't enjoy it, and I don't want to exclude that type. Gamers come in different types, and I'm not just talking about the artificial 'hardcore/mainstream' divide you guys love to throw around.

Alright. I got the impression from your previous posts in the other thread that the most influencing factor over your decision to shy away from time limits is this blunt idea of "most people hating it" ("I've polled hardcore people who like C&C. They just don't like the time limits." - "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.")

If you're giving more weight to the argument than just the numbers, or the numbers as the single most decisive factor, then I don't have anything to argue with or say to that, other than thinking on new mechanics to explore artificial time limits like I did here, or VD actually did with AOD, in an effort to make it accepted by more people. I just think that it's worse to accept defeat and move on than to try anew and fail.

Somehow, I doubt that the lack of strong focus on time-constraint based quest design will limit me to an insignificant niche.

You got it backwards, or I couldn't express myself clearly. I meant to say the opposite.

 

[mondblut]

You must have loved Oblivion, then.

Does it have a party of 6-8 and tactical turn-based combat? If so, yes, I very much would.

 

[spectre]

Booyeah, rage against the bolivion. Welcome to 2009 gents.

A page ago I said I am against the idea of time limits, but to be fair it's not the full picture.

I played the hell out of Panzer General one, two, three, and it's idea of turn limits actually appeals to me:
- Defeat is when you take waay too many turns (or fail the objectives, but that's beside the discussion),
Minor victory - is when you know you could have done better if this and that.
Major victory - is when a well though out plan is executed (almost) flawlessly.

It is a different story than a regular time limit, partly because PG is turn based, and you can take as long as you want deciding what you do, but are still pressed for time.
(yes, I know I said time limits not in my strategy, but hey, consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds)

Anyways, I think this framework is salvageable for other situations:

Assumption 1: I (an presumably a few other people) hate to make decisions influenced mainly by a time limit. Sometimes I feel like taking a crap in the middle of the game, or whatever. I ain't getting rushed by no timer.
So: I like my time limits when they do not look like a countdown timer.
I prefer if it's like: I cannot go back to the inn and rest, cause during these 8 hours, because I'll miss the quest.

Assumption 2: A time limits for its own sake is a waste of good mechanics.
Let's take a look at it through the Panzer General-esque scheme:
Situation A - you missed the time limit by days/monts - utter failure, the quest fails, people yell at you. (Major Defeat)
Situaton B - you missed the time limit by a fraction (minutes, hours, depends) - you can still finish the quest in a different way and progress, but it will be harded (Minor Defeat).
Situation C - you completed the quest on time, everyone is happy and you get default good results and rewards (Minor Victory).
Situation D - you complete the quest really fast, ahead of the schedule. You get all the rewards et al, and perhaps something extra. (This can be an extra reward big or small, as needed, or something simple like NPCs commenting that you're a fast one.).

So that in a nutshell is what I consider the ideal framework for time limits.
tl;dr, time limit should force you to manage resources efficiently (not necessarily real time), shouldn't mean an autolose, and needn't be a binary success/fail.

 

[denizsi]

Thanks, spectre. That's one point I've been trying to discuss against the overwhelmingly crowded democratic people of republic of disagreers. A time limit doesn't have to be a an actual countdown and if possible, not end up with binary fail/win, though that's also ok provided you get to choose between what to win and what to fail. My main problem and need for time limits is that narrative in games where it's suggested that time should be an important resource to manage between your goals but really isn't.

I also imagine that the countdown approach could possibly be what bugs most people. The stress of having the ever passing time in the game working against you every second where you can get to a point that anything you can do won't matter because you missed the deadline by few minutes.

Maybe optimistic but I think most of the anti-time-limit people would be ok with artificial/contextual/action based simulation of time-limits as long as it's crystal clear to them that they don't need to hurry literally and make the best use of every passing minute, but simply decide what's best to do and move on towards that goal on their own pace.

Too optimistic?

You must have loved Oblivion, then.

Does it have a party of 6-8 and tactical turn-based combat? If so, yes, I very much would.

So lack of a party is all that keeps Oblivion, despite everything wrong with it, from being a lovable game. And I get frowned down by democratic people of republic of disagreers, (who constitute, like, so many people, objecting to them would be like pissing against the wind) for playing the Oblivion card. If anything, some of you people deserve to be hit by several packs of these cards, in the face.

Codex these days... the rest is in my sig.

 

[Forest Dweller]

I already explained that it isn't about which side or not has the majority, it isn't based on numbers alone. If 1 in 3 people don't like it, I'm not just going to ignore them because 2 in 3 do. I'm going to consider their reasons and whether that feature is worth it as a whole if a certain type of gamer doesn't enjoy it, and I don't want to exclude that type. Gamers come in different types, and I'm not just talking about the artificial 'hardcore/mainstream' divide you guys love to throw around.

Except that it seems you're not just taking everyone's views into consideration. It's one thing for you to be swayed by someone's argument when you present a feature that they don't like. But that doesn't seem to be the case. You've said yourself that you like time limits. So it seems more like you decided to go with the majority view in spite of your own convictions. Not true?

Somehow, I doubt that the lack of strong focus on time-constraint based quest design will limit me to an insignificant niche.

No, but it can gimp what was originally a very novel and interesting way of handling knowledge in a game and a how a player can acquire that.

 

[bhlaab]

Good to know that we have so many people here who hold design ideas upheld by Oblivion to such high esteem. I was starting to worry, fearing that gem of a game would be remembered by some and forgotten by others for all the wrong reasons.

Hey maybe it would be cool if you didn't respond to every faint whiff of diagreement by pitching a shit

 

[mondblut]

So lack of a party is all that keeps Oblivion, despite everything wrong with it, from being a lovable game.

The lack of party and of tactical combat is what keeps Oblivion from being a proper RPG. As for the rest, don't know and don't care, haven't played it. :shrug:

 

[Zomg]

Having an RPGish game where time really, consistently matters is an undiscovered continent at this point. I don't expect random shitheels to have useful opinions about whether the birds there are pretty.

 

[spectre]

Try Hammer and Sickle then.

 

[Awor Szurkrarz]

I like reasonable time limits.

Fallout felt more realistic because of the time limit. I have never failed to finish the game and almost all quests within that time limit, though.

I think that a harsher time limit could be interesting. Mainly, because the development time of games is limited. If the playing time isn't limited, the player can explore everything and run out of quests to do.
While cRPGs seem to obsess with moving the player from place to place, there's no real dynamism of story - it's move to area a, do all the quests, move to area b, do all the quests, move to area c, do all the quests, etc. until the world is empty of quests and it's time for a final boss fight,
It's like the player character is some kind of locust.

Having time limits for both the main quest and side quests could greatly enhance re-playability by allowing to make more choices in every play-through,

 

[spectre]

I think that a harsher time limit could be interesting. Mainly, because the development time of games is limited. If the playing time isn't limited, the player can explore everything and run out of quests to do.

I prefer soft limits here, ADOM is a good example of one, if you dick around too much, background corruption increases and makes your character gain chaos mutations faster... which can kill you eventually.

 

[Awor Szurkrarz]

ADOM is much bigger than Fallout, partially randomly generated and needs much less quest writing/scripting.
Mutant invasion in Fallout could have the same role as increasing background corruption in ADOM, though.

On the other had some quests in ADOM have pretty harsh time/level limits (puppy quest, Kranach) and some are cut off by choosing other quests, which gives options for different beginnings, which enhances the re-playability a lot.

Not to mention crazy stuff like ultra endings.

Damn, now I need to play ADOM again.

 

[Forest Dweller]

What is ADOM?

 

[Awor Szurkrarz]

Ancient Domains of Mystery - one of the best roguelikes, ever. It's complex, easy to get into, has towns and wilderness to provide some rest from dungeon crawling, multiple endings and a good balance between randomly generated and fixed content.
It has D&D monsters and Chaos and corruption.

I played it practically every day for a few years until I have finally finished it for the first time.

 

[Damned Registrations]

I keep going back to it every year or so and get put off once I can reliably get a character to stabilize the big room. At that point you basically spend a metric assload of time repetitively farming herbs and do some easy dungeons/sidequests hoping an amulet of life saving shows up or a wish. Afterwards, amulet or no, you have to dive into the incredibly dangerous and finicky later dungeons where you can die in one turn from things you couldn't even see using ranged attacks.

This is assuming I managed to get to this point without having some random mook I can one shot and tank for 2000 turns go into a berserk rage and one shot me.

ADOM is a cool game but the random instadeaths/screwovers piss me off and have nothing to do with planning or skill. Add to that a handful of simple bugs that could all be fixed within a week if the asshole of a creator would let someone do it for him. I hope he gets hit by a bus and spins in his grave forever when everybody stops playing his game because it can't be updated or fixed ever. :evil:

 

[Cassidy]

Most games would be better with time limits as long as they are reasonable and properly implemented. It adds a new layer of challenge to the game when done right. I don't treat CRPGs as interactive "choose your own adventure" stories although I definitively like an element of choices and consequences in both dialogue and gameplay mechanics, and as I like challenging games, I tend to not abhor time limits that much as long as they're not of the arcadey sort.

And finally, there is no greater immunization against grind than a global time limit, as long as the game is properly balanced, of course.

Still, the time limit should never be placed with no purpose. It must have a logical reason behind it, not just "Oh gais we can't make this game difficult and program an AI that isn't dumbfuck so lets put a time limit to make the players think this game has some challenge"

 

[Damned Registrations]

My favourite game with a severe time limit was the fifth Breath of Fire game. Basically, your character was possessed by a monster and was slowly being corrupted. Accessing the powers of the monster (Which, when heavily used, utterly annihilate even the strongest bosses before they can move) speeds up the process further.

This was somewhat balanced by having a very well defined goal; reaching the surface after starting very deep underground, with knowledge of exactly how deep you are (Although not exactly what is between you and the surface.)

It lent a sense of urgency and presence to the story most games lack. It's very difficult to feel drawn in by a storyline when you're thinking about sidetracking constantly to acquire more loot, xp, explore, do a sidequest, etc. because you know that theres no rush to the main story. The kidnapped princess will always be waiting. Your 'fatal' illness will never get any worse. Doomsday is always a few cutscenes away.

Time limits work very very well to reinforce strong story elements. Giving gameplay consequences -including outright death- to (not) dealing with the story makes the story feel much more 'real'.

 

[spectre]

ADOM is a cool game but the random instadeaths/screwovers piss me off and have nothing to do with planning or skill.

Whatever floats your boat.
I like it how you accuse it of not requiring skill and planning, when in fact it does.
All things you speak of you can (and should) prepare against.
Yes, there are things that can kill you in an instant and the rng is brutal, deal with it.
Or you can just baaaw.

 

[Awor Szurkrarz]

I like instant kills in ADOM. Actually, after playing ADOM for so many years a part of me is always disappointed when I watch an action movie and its protagonist doesn't die in a stupid way in the end.

 

[Damned Registrations]

ADOM is a cool game but the random instadeaths/screwovers piss me off and have nothing to do with planning or skill.

Whatever floats your boat.
I like it how you accuse it of not requiring skill and planning, when in fact it does.
All things you speak of you can (and should) prepare against.
Yes, there are things that can kill you in an instant and the rng is brutal, deal with it.
Or you can just baaaw.

Theres a differences between being kiled by the banshee because you didn't know she could kill you, and being killed by blink dogs because they have fucking teleport, chain summon, and killing them drops your alignment and pisses off your god. Or having some vital piece of equipment turned into shrapnel before you can get a set of keys or a knock spell. Or, again, the beyond retarded berserker rage from something as pathetic as a normal werewolf that couldn't kill me if I were paralyzed but because the rng felt like it, gets to auto kill me in one turn with 'rage'.

The only way to 'prepare' against that is to stairscum the ID until you have a wish engine or so much crap you don't know what to do with one. Short of having resources far beyond anything you should have at that stage of the game, these things will fuck you, and the only defense is being lucky. Where in most roguelikes dying is your fault for making a mistake you can recognize afterwards, dying in ADOM is usually just shit luck. Added to the massive amount of time spent scumming herbs and that stupid quest monster at the same point in every game makes it mostly a chore to play.