74 réponses à ce sujet

[NirvanaRain]

It would be a good feature but many people myself included like knowing that they dont have to do things in a set time, I like leaving the main story and going off to do side missions, the thought of having a timer on the game, while it wouldnt stop me from playing it, it would probably detract from my enjoyment of the game.

[zaklaus]

It sounds like a neat idea, but PLEASE don't ever mention it again!!! I didn't like the "clock" thing in Me2's Suicide mission, and I don't want it in any RPG, period.

I didn't like it in Fallout 1 for the same reason as in every other rpg I've seen it in- I like to explore and take my time to completion, not rush throughat the last second, knowing I'm missing things, because the timer's about to run out.

[Kaiser Shepard]

cedgedc wrote...

Awe dude! I was gonna play that! Well now that you spoiled the ending...

Sorry, did not intent to. Still, that game deserves to be played for its gameplay alone: one of the better games in the X-series, as it's all downhill from there on. Guess that's what happens of the series director not being involved with a sequel due to him actually not being informed of its existance (I kid you not), and as a result why most fans don't acknowledge X6-8 as canon.

But seriously, play it!

[kalpain]

I read somewhere around here that the devs were considering timed responses during conversations. As in you will have a certain amount of time to select your response. I really really hope they don't do that...

[cedgedc]

Kaiser Shepard wrote...

cedgedc wrote...

Awe dude! I was gonna play that! Well now that you spoiled the ending...

Sorry, did not intent to. Still, that game deserves to be played for its gameplay alone: one of the better games in the X-series, as it's all downhill from there on. Guess that's what happens of the series director not being involved with a sequel due to him actually not being informed of its existance (I kid you not), and as a result why most fans don't acknowledge X6-8 as canon.

But seriously, play it!

Go back to playing SNES? I think that would be digging up a can of emotional worms that I'm just not prepared to face!

[cedgedc]

kalpain wrote...

I read somewhere around here that the devs were considering timed responses during conversations. As in you will have a certain amount of time to select your response. I really really hope they don't do that...

That I like a lot. Keep the pressure on a bit. Except I kindof liked that i could hop afk for a moment during a dialogue when I needed too... Hmm.

[Nathan Redgrave]

Having an actual time limit has been implemented well in at least one game: The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask. However, that was mostly due to the ability to go back to the start of the "time limit" and re-do things, allowing for an element of trial-and-error along the way. Mass Effect does not have time travel--and, gods above willing, never will--so that wouldn't work.

I also don't think it needs one. Realistically, the game will only take roughly forty-to-sixty hours, which isn't much time at all. Even if you're absolutely thorough, the question is less about Shepard taking too long than it is about Shepard bothering with all the peripheral bullcrap in the first place.

[termokanden]

Gentleman Moogle wrote...

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.

I feel the same way.

I'm fairly certain this feature would ruin the game for me.

In a shooter where you're not supposed to stop and talk to people, and where everything is told while you're still shooting people, this concept works well. But in a game like ME1 or 2 I wouldn't want some clock driving me forward and forcing me to skip content.

[Valmarn]

A clock would be opening up a can of worms. IMO, it would create more problems than it would solve. It would be especially taxing on the development team and the writers. If they develop the game and write the storyline with the characters' perception of time under consideration, it may have negative repercussions.

They have their own perception of time to worry about, as it is. I'd rather that didn't have the characters' to worry about, too.

Modifié par Valmarn, 06 avril 2011 - 02:03 .

[FobManX]

Meh, not a fan of that idea. I don't like having to rush, it takes away my enjoyment of the game.

[cedgedc]

more people need to read the thread before posting.

[Valmarn]

cedgedc wrote...

more people need to read the thread before posting.

Unless it's one page or less, I imagine few people are going to read through an entire thread before making a post.

Modifié par Valmarn, 06 avril 2011 - 06:08 .

[Estelindis]

I like time limits if they're applied consistently. The one plot-central time limit in ME2 (when to go through the omega relay after the Collector attack on the Normandy) is very easy to miss, because at all other points in the Mass Effect series where there seems to be some time-related urgency you can actually do as many side-quests as you want without being penalised in any way. It's hard to know that this particular mission should be any different than the others.

[Nathan Redgrave]

kalpain wrote...

I read somewhere around here that the devs were considering timed responses during conversations. As in you will have a certain amount of time to select your response. I really really hope they don't do that...

I think that idea may have been repurposed into the Paragon/Renegade Interrupt system. Timing actual dialogue responses would be silly.

[kalpain]

cedgedc wrote...

kalpain wrote...

I read somewhere around here that the devs were considering timed responses during conversations. As in you will have a certain amount of time to select your response. I really really hope they don't do that...

That I like a lot. Keep the pressure on a bit. Except I kindof liked that i could hop afk for a moment during a dialogue when I needed too... Hmm.

I think it could work in certain situations.  But I certainly wouldn't want to be time for every single conversation.  I suppose in the worst case scenario I could hit the Xbox Button my controller and bring up the artificial pause screen (that's what I call it) if I needed to ponder a deep descision.  Though hopefully this will be a moot point when ME3 comes out.

[kalpain]

Nathan Redgrave wrote...

kalpain wrote...

I read somewhere around here that the devs were considering timed responses during conversations. As in you will have a certain amount of time to select your response. I really really hope they don't do that...

I think that idea may have been repurposed into the Paragon/Renegade Interrupt system. Timing actual dialogue responses would be silly.

That would make more sense but those are already timed.  I imagine they could have been referring to refining that system a little more.  Not sure how they would do it though.

[kalpain]

double post

Modifié par kalpain, 06 avril 2011 - 07:53 .

[termokanden]

For my tastes, movies and games often try a bit too hard to give you a sense of urgency. This is probably also me getting older, but if I watch an action movie and they go "oh no, we only have 23 minutes until the bomb explodes" I am instantly bored. Somehow constantly hurrying up through mindless action seems like non-content to me.

But a game like Mass Effect (1 or 2) has enough actual story to keep me interested. All the little things, even the small jokes that you wouldn't have had time to look at if you were in a hurry, it all adds up. I want there to be time to stop and enjoy some of the universe instead of just seeing glimpses of it.

By the way, I only recently actually realized that you could "use" the vending machine on the Citadel. I don't know how I managed to walk past it all those times. VERY strange stuff 

PetrySilva wrote...

I hate any type of clock. Be it in just one part of the game or in the entire game.

I never played Dead Rising because of the stupid clock.

Dead Rising needs a real sandbox mode if you ask me. It's fun to finish the story mode. Once. Then you just want to play around without the stupid timers. Oh but it's even worse in DR2. You must use Zombrex at specific times. To be sure you get it just right, you pretty much have to waste time staying close to base.

Modifié par termokanden, 06 avril 2011 - 07:56 .

[kalpain]

Vending machine?

[MrGone]

cedgedc wrote...

I see where the OP is going with this. In many ways I agree. Most of us here know that the one thing pretty much every RPG has in comon is the general structure.

It's like a two sided funnel. It starts out very narrow and linnear, then broadens out to where you can go explore side content, and then narrows back down, ushering you toward the last big event.

While I like the ability to progress laterally in a game, I have never liked the sense of 'timelessness' that occurs during this middle stage. You can go do 50 side quests, and yet you don't have the slightest sensation of forward progress in the plot.

You're in the lost time section of the game, which is dominated by frustrating dialogue loops. You lose the sense of urgency, knowing full well that you can take as much time as you want to do everything, but you also know that anything you do during that stage of the game, typically falls into the 'bonus' category, and doesn't really impact the overall ending.

That said, Bioware has done a terrific job in their RPG's of making you feel like that sidetime does count toward the grand scheme of things. But there's still this timelessness. You talk to the npc's on your ship and they respond as though you just spoke to them 5 mins ago when you've been playing  for 5 hours and travelled around the galaxy 10 times.

Problem is, that just sortof goes with the territory. The designers made this game, with all the side content, all the decisions and varieties of play-throughs because they want you to play it as long as possible (or atleast until the next title is released!).

It seems basically like the time concept you're describing is a turnbased rpg, where you can accomplish a certain number of 'moves' within a turn (say 6 month period). Then you end the turn and move onto the next stage and are exposed to the events that occured as a result of your actions during that turn.

(You also see this in the Rome Total War series and any number of strategy games.)

Thus you aren't pressed for time. You can sit and make decisions for as long as you like, but you do have to decide 'Do I help Tali, or do I help Jacob?' There is no active timer when you're in any-one place, but it does give a sense of time. This could work, but plenty of people wouldn't like it.

A happier compromise might be something to the effect of what was done with Dragon Age 2, where the game is essentially a series of stages you progress through, and you can do as much or as little as you like within each. You are then faced with the results of your decisions throughout the game, and not just once at the 'final event'.

You've nailed it exactly. Thank you good sir/madam!

I must have had some sort of block in my brain as I wasn't able to communicate this concept quite as well as I'd have hoped.

I understand that a huge part of Mass Effect's charm is that there's a lot of characterization involved, and I don't think anyone should be penalized for wanting to talk to every single person on the citadel. But for major missions. travel, and sidequests, some accountability that affected the story would be nice.

And yeah something akin to Dragon Age 2 might work well too,  I did like how that game tracked your descisions in each "stage" from one to the next. It was sort of like a micro ME trilogy in one game!

As far as I'm concerned having to make the choice between doing a side mission with an obvious benefit but at the cost of more human lives should be a choice that's on the player's mind. In ME2, I didn't know about the post Normandy attack thing, and assumed that like with every other point in the game I had free reign to do what I wanted. Why wouldn't I, there's no way to know that now of all times, time is set back into the "on" position?

But If I did know, then that descision becomes like the Virmire choice in ME1, and that type of choice is what ME is all about. It's what really makes ME compelling if you ask me.

I guess the thing is, this subtle influence of time in ME2 showed me that actually using time as a deciding factor (in this case time being measured in number of missions performed) could turn some choices which might be no-brainers (of course you probably don't want to go right away, what if there's no post game sequence, then you'll lose out on side quests) into real conundrums. Into these compelling descisions.

In fact, I feel this is a failing of ME2, not because it isn't intersting, but because it's not consistent with any other point of the game.

I guess my thought is, if time were consistent through the whole game in order to make events like the Post-Normandy-Attack descision more commonplace, what would you need to do? Well, you'd need to notify the player. How would you do that? A Calendar, or clock or counter.

Hence this post.

But again, thanks for conveying the idea better than I did. I guess I was too enraptured by the concept to explain it properly.

Other things:

Valkyrie Profile is awesome.

Timing in conversation choices was done in Alpha Protocol, and from what I understand was one of the cooler parts of that game. It's the gameplay of Alpha Protocol that was terrible from what I hear, not the writing or the conversation system.

[cedgedc]

@MrGone I agree that Virmire was an incredible moment in a game for me. It's a big choice that changes the outcome of the game and the titles to follow as well. Having more choices like this not only adds pressure and tension in the plot (in a good way) but also provides for a variety in your various play throughs.

Having some timed decisions and more scenarios where you can't just have it all, but instead need to choose one thing over another; one crew member over another; saving people at the cost of casualties to your crew, etc- would make the experience considerably more intense.

The Dragon Age 2 system would be fun as well. Like you've said, it's like a microcosm of a series of games condensed into one. You're faced with the results of your decisions many times instead of just getting a series of credits at the end of the game to tell you the results.

I never liked the notion of totally unlimited time where you can do anything and everything. Having the game interfere and tell you, 'No more time for that, we need to do this!' (perhaps with the option to come back and continue some more side quests later) gives more sense of reality to the plot.

[termokanden]

cedgedc wrote...

I never liked the notion of totally unlimited time where you can do anything and everything. Having the game interfere and tell you, 'No more time for that, we need to do this!' (perhaps with the option to come back and continue some more side quests later) gives more sense of reality to the plot.

And takes away some of the freedom from the player.

Having the option to spend time on seemingly unimportant chit chat and side quests makes the game universe seem more real. There's no problem with having time limits in individual parts of the game, but I absolutely hate the idea of having a general time limit in the game.

Modifié par termokanden, 07 avril 2011 - 02:06 .

[cedgedc]

termokanden wrote...

cedgedc wrote...

I never liked the notion of totally unlimited time where you can do anything and everything. Having the game interfere and tell you, 'No more time for that, we need to do this!' (perhaps with the option to come back and continue some more side quests later) gives more sense of reality to the plot.

And takes away some of the freedom from the player.

Having the option to spend time on seemingly unimportant chit chat and side quests makes the game universe seem more real. There's no problem with having time limits in individual parts of the game, but I absolutely hate the idea of having a general time limit in the game.

Just to clarify. No one is talking about a time limit like you have 10 hours to beat the game, or only 5 hours to explore side content.

Rather something more along the lines of Shepard knowing he can only help out 5 or so of his crew members with side quests before too many people start dying on earth. Thus he would have to choose which crew members meant the most to him/her. (Of course it doesn't have to be 5)

It's merely the notion that a choice has to be made. It's not a count down, or  a timer.

[kalpain]

cedgedc wrote...

termokanden wrote...

cedgedc wrote...

I never liked the notion of totally unlimited time where you can do anything and everything. Having the game interfere and tell you, 'No more time for that, we need to do this!' (perhaps with the option to come back and continue some more side quests later) gives more sense of reality to the plot.

And takes away some of the freedom from the player.

Having the option to spend time on seemingly unimportant chit chat and side quests makes the game universe seem more real. There's no problem with having time limits in individual parts of the game, but I absolutely hate the idea of having a general time limit in the game.

Just to clarify. No one is talking about a time limit like you have 10 hours to beat the game, or only 5 hours to explore side content.

Rather something more along the lines of Shepard knowing he can only help out 5 or so of his crew members with side quests before too many people start dying on earth. Thus he would have to choose which crew members meant the most to him/her. (Of course it doesn't have to be 5)

It's merely the notion that a choice has to be made. It's not a count down, or  a timer.

This is an aspect of ME2 that I can live with in ME3.  So many missions before you HAD to go to Horizon.  So many after that before you HAD to go to the Collector ship.  Talk to Legion after you pick up him and the IFF or you HAD to leave and the Normandy gets attacked by the Collectors.  And so on and so forth.  As long as there isn't a death clock ticking away in game that I have to be mindful of at all times I think I will be cool...

[Chromie]

Games that did a great job with time limits.

Dead Rising yup. Not an rpg but still fun.
Fallout 1. OMG one of the best rpgs ever. And really most unique sad to see Fallout 3.
Legend of Zelda Majora's Mask. It handled the time limit in such a unique way really made the game quite amazing.

I really can't think of any other though. But to me it seems when your forced to do a mission or let people die based on a time limit really forces you to roleplay your character. Do you wanna be the hero or do you let the people die for the greater good?

Like the OP I was always annoyed to never find that in the game.