74 réponses à ce sujet

[MrGone]

So I've been on a Bioware binge lately, and finished Mass Effect 1 and 2 in rapid succession (or as rapid as an RPG will allow), and it seems to me that there's one thing that's not really addressed rather well, but is supposed to be a big part of both stories: time.

If you remember the original trailer for ME1 (which plays on the title screen if you leave it in attract mode), Shepard and crew recieve a distress signal, but choose to ignore it in order to do something even more important but leaving those calling to die. This is a choice that's seemingly made because of a lack of time, if there was more time, Shepard and crew would undoubtedly have tried to solve both problems. But the thing is, this type of descision making isn't ever reflective in actual gameplay in either game (pretty sure this isn't a spoiler).

At no point in ME1 or 2 are you truly pressured for time in a way that would affect your descision making other than the occasional race to stop a bomb. I can ignore major events which compel me to do important plot stuff in favor of sidequests in both games at every turn.

This seems a dreadful mistake to me, and it makes it easier to compae ME with any standard JRPG (well it's just before the final boss, time to do side quests!). Part of the unique aspect of gameplay that the original 2007 trailer of ME brought to us was that "even heroes have to make hard choices". Sure this is occasionally represented mid game, with tough choices here or there, but a lot really aren't that tough to me, and there are more "right" answers in ME 2 than 1 if you ask me, but wouldn't the additional pressure of a countdown clock really just add to the pressure, and force the player to try and make the best choice "at the time".

Of course I think I know why there's no such feature in ME1 and 2: it's hard to figure out.
How much time does it take to go through a mass relay? A day? An hour? How much to travel between two solar systems at faster than light speed? How much time does it take to drop down to a planet, and how long are you on a planet really? In some missions it might be hours, in others, it seems like days. When scanning and minig planets for resources, how long is that taking? It seems like minutes, but that can't be right.

Personally though I'd still rather such a feature be implemented. Back in Fallout 1, the need to get a water chip for the vault in so many days really added solid pressure to the main quest. While I know there's a fear that such a mode would scare away casual players: I say just add it as a feature that can be turned off, similar to Fallout New Vegas' Hardcore mode.

Also considering the subject matter of ME3 being preventing the anillihation of an entire species under active attack, it seems only fitting.

[Lukertin]

I like the idea, unfortunately I have a feeling they would never implemenet such a thing

[Saviordd1]

A neat idea to be sure but im not sure it could be a "on/off" feature. Something like an overall timer would be a huge part of gameplay and choices, and without it some choices might even seem trivial. I like your idea but for now i think what they have works for what it is

[AlanC9]

I'd like it, but too many supposed RPG fans don't like being stressed out when they play.

[KujiMuji]

A setting, or item, or function that tells you the time, or how much time has passed sounds cool. I don't think it would be implemented in a way that it can affect game play, unless you want a Dead Rising 1-2 feel..

[MrGone]

Oh I just had another idea, perhaps even easier to implement, but may convey the same sense of "time".

A "lives cost" for each mission. Basically, think to Battlestar Galactica, and president Roslin's counter of the remaining numbers of humans on a dry-erase board. No matter what you choose to do, every mission you take other than the final push to defeat the invaders costs human lives, and you get informed of this at the end of your mission.

Depending on certain choices and actions . . . you can do things to defray the number of lives and/or add to it.

However defeating the invaders will still require a huge amount of technology/team members/ joining factions whatever, and that will take time to accomplish and thus more lives as you delay. This would allow for a sort of overall meta-game, where if you rush in unprepared, it will be much harder and you might save more lives, or if you meticulously prepare you're almost assured success, but it will become a phyrric victory at best.

[t-dave]

"Hurry, Star Force! Earth has only 36 days left!"

[Gentleman Moogle]

It's an interesting idea, and I'm sure there are folks out there who would enjoy it.

I, am not one of them.

I prefer to play games at my own pace, to root around in the game world, to ferret out every last secret and side-quest there is. I enjoy moving slowly, seeing everything there is to see before finishing the game. Adding a 'death clock' to the game would just limit the amount of time I can enjoy myself in the game's setting.

[kohlmannj]

There was a little bit of this in ME2 from my understanding. Wasn't it the case that starting the final mission semi-immediately after H*****n let you save some of those colonists? More "soft" time-critical events or decisions like this one could be a good compromise that doesn't overwhelm players but still pressures them to decide whether or not they're going to act at all.

[MrGone]

Gentleman Moogle makes a good point. But I do respectfully disagree that a "death clock" would limit the amount of enjoyment people could have.

I guess . . . just look at Dead Rising 1 or 2. Those games are filled to the brim with little secrets and side quests and whatnot, like an RPG, but they also have a time limit which encourages some responsibility that increases intensity. The main thing is, there's no way you'll get a perfect run on your first try (most likely) which encourages you to play the game again. If there's a game series better situated for multiple playthroughs . . . it's Mass Effect. Make different choices, see different results etc.

I guess my point is, how is it really that different to go at your own pace slowly and see everything in one run, versus going at your own pace and see everything in a few runs of a game?

[DustxParticle]

Oddly, I think this isn't quite relevant with what you had in mind [a timer gauge to determine how long you have to do something as oppose to what 'day' it is].

Example being when you finish Arch Angel recruitment mission, if you did the paragon thing and stopped that 'would-be' merc from signing up for the mission [Paragon says I break your gun, sucker!], you get an e-mail from him saying "I was so upset when you ruined my gun, so I spent the next few weeks getting totally drunk, then I heard about how Archangel murderised all those mercs, you really helped me dodge a bullet. Thanks!"

When, in fact, it'd been barely an hour in real time since this all happened, and depending on your choice, you may still have to go recruit Mordin as well. Either that guy drank so much he could see through time, or time just isn't relative. lol

[Jayne7]

kohlmannj wrote...

There was a little bit of this in ME2 from my understanding. Wasn't it the case that starting the final mission semi-immediately after H*****n let you save some of those colonists? More "soft" time-critical events or decisions like this one could be a good compromise that doesn't overwhelm players but still pressures them to decide whether or not they're going to act at all.

I agree there is an element having to make a "critical" decision of whether to do other assignments or missions after Horizon or the unassuming timing of only two more missions/assignments could be completed after acquiring the IFF because it would determine the number of non-squad crew members that would be lost. So, the scenario of Shep having to pick and choose  missions/assignments is there albiet subltly.  Keep in mind too that there will be over 1000 variables that will affect the gameplay in ME3 so it could be doing all the missions & side quests could come back to bite us in the end.

[TelexFerra]

Play Space Trader Merchant/Marine and then tell me that time limits is a good idea.

[Raizo]

I hate this idea. Time limits and rpg's should not go together.

[MrGone]

Raizo wrote...

I hate this idea. Time limits and rpg's should not go together.

And yet to me it seems like it's the thing that really adds a true bit of the "RP".

[Asch Lavigne]

AlanC9 wrote...

I'd like it, but too many supposed RPG fans don't like being stressed out when they play.

Stressed out, yeah, that's me. But I am not a "supposed" fan. I just hate feeling rushed when I'm playing a game, any game. I want to take my time and explore, and be able t o breathe for a moment and think, and in the case of ME2, find the upgrades. If they made a mission that had a timer that'd be one thing and I'd be fine with that but a timer for the whole game, no way. How am I supposed to go and do all the sidequests when I have to worry about having enough tiem for the plot? I just really hope ME3 doesn't do the "Too bad now you have to go back to the plot" thing that ME2 did.

Modifié par Asch Lavigne, 03 avril 2011 - 08:56 .

[Terror_K]

I certainly don't think there should be an overall timer for the whole main plot, but I do think certain situations and missions should have time as a factor, though more akin to how it was done in ME2 with your crew being taken. For example, if you get an urgent distress call then you should go there ASAP, and the longer you take the worse it should be. Go there straight away and you can rescue the ones who made the call. Delay by a planet or two and a few may die. Wait much longer and you still end up fighting a bunch of guys, but whoever sent the call is already dead. Stuff like that. While having two or much such events at once would be a bad choice, perhaps there could be situations where you have to pick one or the other (a little like Kaidan/Ashley on Virmire or the missiles in one of the N7 missions). For example, you're on a mission and have to stop something, and you hear a call for help from a group of people. If you go to help them you may save them, but at the expense of stopping whatever it was you were trying to. Like perhaps you are pursuing some batarian slavers who are escaping with a bunch of captives: you can either chase them down and stop them, or you can stop another group of slavers from taking more. Either way you only save one group but not both.

[sissysouthpaw]

I could live with what Terror_K suggests but generally I hate hate hate any sort of timers, for the reasons Gentleman Moogle and others have brought up.

[legion999]

The original Fallout had a timelimit of 500 days to find a waterchip and defeat a mutant army. It worked for that but I don't see it working in ME3 too many variables. Eg mass relays, ftl time, missions etc.

[Fantazm1978]

I despise time limits in games.

[Phaedon]

Clocks and timed events tend to be badly executed and have been characterized as poor and uncreative game design elements.

A good designer can make you feel pressure without a clock.

[RVonE]

Dead Rising? Dead Rising.

[CroGamer002]

Personally I believe the longer you take your time to get army, more casualties you'll have on Earth.

[xxSgt_Reed_24xx]

I like the idea... just no actual clock.... make it where if you take forever, more people die, but better chance for success. More decisions like the "let's get the crew back" after Joker almost loses the ship....

you can either go do those side missions or lose some of your crew. Those kind of decisions need to happen more often.

[MrGone]

Phaedon wrote...

Clocks and timed events tend to be badly executed and have been characterized as poor and uncreative game design elements.

A good designer can make you feel pressure without a clock.

And yet an even better game designer can turn a clock into one of the most creative and important game design elements. Dead Rising really wouldn't be the same, and neither would Majora's Mask if they didn't have clocks. In both cases, the long standing but slowly ticking impending countdown adds, rather than detracts.

Also, again Fallout 1. It's a huge time limit (500 days I think someone said, it's been a while), and it can even be extended by sending supplies. It gives most every player enough time to do everything they want and find all the stuff they're going to find, but still impart that sense that time is tangible, and limited. It informs the rest of the game in a way that the non-time, always in the present form of almost every other game doesn't.

Besides, I already suggested an alternate concept that might work even better -death toll costs. It gives the same sense of impending doom, but without an actual clock, which apparently bugs people for some reason.