28 réponses à ce sujet

[Tree fox]

 This idea makes me slightly nervous but here it goes:
What if Bioware implemented a system where if you do one mission another becomes unavailable or more havoc is wreaked upon the area that you didn't go too?

I really want to know what you guys think. 

[MrGone]

I wondered something similar a while back. It had an interesting discussion break out.

[Raygereio]

Different paths with the path you didn't chose becomming unavailable isn't awfull idea in and of itself. Something like that could be interesting; it could make things hectic and force the player to choose between different targets because he can't be everywhere at once.
Then again it would raise the issue once more as to why the rest of your team is just sitting on your ship sipping drinks at Kasumi's bar while you're busy working. That and the punishment for doing one thing over the other would have to be very carefully handled to avoid such a thing from becomming frustrating to the player and to not promote one choice over the other..

Modifié par Raygereio, 28 juin 2011 - 08:19 .

[ApplesauceBandit]

Please...just no.

[brain_damage]

Nononono, please, that would be horrible.

[Fault Girl]

I dont mind different paths but I would hate for some to be timed etc I don't want to feel rushed, I'm a slow player.

[Bnol]

I think it is logical to at least have certain times where this is the case. But it will need to be at least somewhat hinted at, if not shoved in the players face, so that the player is aware of the choices that are being made. But I wouldn't want this at all times, because I do like to do some things at my own pace and be able to do the side missions when I want to, since sometimes I only have a small amount of time to play so I will just knock out a side mission, I don't really want to have that be a choice against my "clock" so to speak.

[alihou]

Timers are one of the worst things in RPG's imo... when i'm on a time limit, I don't even care what i'm doing b/c the only thing in my mind is to beat the shot clock so to speak... ME2 had a mission or 2 with time limits... I just don't like them... Also... I remember BW saying that ME3 will be relatively the same length of ME2 BUT... with A LOT more re-playability... I have a feeling we may have to choose which missions we'll be doing and sacrificing others... This will suck if it is the case...

[Guitar-Hero]

I wouldn't support locking out missions without a valid reason to support it, but having consequences in choosing which mission you do would be interesting, something ala. TSM

[Captain Crash]

Undoubtedly the game needs an element of urgency. A timer certainly wouldnt be popular. The games not a race and we seen in ME2 statistics that some people average 30hours where as others double that. As others have mentioned locking out particular missions could occur if you play 4 missions before it for example. Could make it interesting and will certainly add consequence. Just as long as it works game play wise im fine.

[hwf]

It's oldskool, System Shock 1, Star Control 2 old, but the whole deal with the Derelict Reaper in ME2 was kind of nice and in essence it was a timed event. It made sense in a clock is ticking sense and there was something at stake.
Would require a lot of additional work in narrative, cinematography though.

From what I understood travel times without using mass relays and just using regular FTL takes a long time; a dozen lightyears or so in a day on a passenger liner? -So it makes sense in a way that some of Shepard's options would disappear over time.

Maybe if it was tied to a new extreme difficulty level like "Timed Insanity"?

Modifié par hwf, 28 juin 2011 - 10:23 .

[julian08]

Hmm, now there's an interesting idea.
I see why people would dislike this suggestion, because it can be very frustrating to impose a time limit or add mutually exclusive missions in a complex and story driven game like ME. But I wouldn't dismiss the idea entirely (I'm not the Turian Councilor after all ).
If it's done right, it can add a sense of urgency that would be very fitting for the final part of the ME trilogy. The Reapers are invading, time is running out and you have to make choices quickly. And you also have to accept the fact that you won't be able to save everyone ==> Drama Ensues
As I said, it would be hard to do it right, but I think BW could make it work.
It should, however, be a mission based timer, not some kind of real-time countdown. That would just be nonsensical and a massive pain in the neck.

[AngryFrozenWater]

A timed game? No, I don't like that at all.

[Icinix]

No.

I'm all for keeping things as realistic as possible for the sake of the story ....to a point.

Preventing people from playing the game in the manner and time they would like is detrimental to games as whole in my mind.

That said, if it was a point of no return, like ME2, and you only committed to it when you were ready then I see no issue. But forcing it upon people is bad, bad, bad. Very bad.

[Degenerate Rakia Time]

Hell no, it's like...having a counter that says "5000 people died while you were feeding your fish"

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

Fallout.

But a literal timed game? I'm not for that... well, I can be for that, but I understand why people aren't.

If you mean a "you chose to dick around doing x number of quests in y planet, when you could've been at z planet defending them from the Reapers, now they're all dead because you were supposed to come straight away but you didn't, you lying bastard!" type deal, hell yes.

It's one of the areas so poorly implemented in RPGs - the concept of actual urgency.

Not enough games really instill a) a sense of actual failure and the ability to let the player feel the consequences of said failure without breaking the narrative(s).

Let's not tie it to an actual timer, but let people know that if a quest/mission is urgent, there are consequences to not taking it seriously.

Modifié par mrcrusty, 28 juin 2011 - 10:57 .

[AngryFrozenWater]

Icinix wrote...

No.

I'm all for keeping things as realistic as possible for the sake of the story ....to a point.

Preventing people from playing the game in the manner and time they would like is detrimental to games as whole in my mind.

That said, if it was a point of no return, like ME2, and you only committed to it when you were ready then I see no issue. But forcing it upon people is bad, bad, bad. Very bad.

I agree with you on that.

[SalsaDMA]

Given their stance on net punishing players for their choices, I really doubt the stuff in this thread is even a consideration for them.

You're going to be able to do all the missions you want, up untill a certain 'cut off point' that is clearly marked. Just like in ME2.

[Raygereio]

mrcrusty wrote...
It's one of the areas so poorly implemented in RPGs - the concept of actual urgency.

RPG's have always been really bad at that. It's a consequence from giving the player some freedom to what he or she wants. Sadly it means that any feeling of suspence and urgence is pretty much always lost.
You fight your way through the final dungeon, you stare the final boss who's about to destroy the world into the eye and go: "Nice evil ritual you guys have going on here. You mind if you postpond things for a couple of months? I'm going to race some chocobo's. Here, have some coffee while you wait."
Heck, take ME1. You recieve the main quest called  "A race against time". And what does the player do? Go mountaineering with the Mako on every planet he can.

Mind you, providing such sence of urgence  can easily make the game not fun. Players like to explore, they like to see what's happening around corner Y, when the game tells them to around corner X. And then you're going to punish the player for not hurrying up? No. Bad! I'm never a fan of punishing the player, especially not for doing something as innocent as looking at the level design, or doing one of the side mission.
But I'm all for having small consequences that don't greatly impact the player's ability to play the game, but stil can provide a feedback of "you did this".

Modifié par Raygereio, 28 juin 2011 - 11:22 .

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

The Big Bad Wolf wrote...

No, we would not be able to enjoy the game as much.

It would depend on how it was designed.

Rather than a literal timer, let's just make a crapdash example.

You have a planet with a colony which holds a secret that's necessary to defeat the Reapers. Unfortunately, Cerberus is after that secret/information too. You warn them (the colony) of the incoming attack and they ask you to help them plan. Fixing the shield generator, training the troops, buying equipment, the usual fort building jingo. But let's say your Shepard doesn't feel like it.

He goes off galavanting doing other quests, on other planets.

If you have progressed in say, 2-3 other long questlines on other planets, when you get back the colony is a charred, burnt out wreck.

Everyone, dead. Any quests you had remaining or uncompleted, meh. It's gone. If you want to still explore and pick up items left behind, everything is still there, but the people are all dead so no more quests, shopping, etc.

As far as the secret/information goes, you now need to get that information from Cerberus directly, so it opens up like a "raid Cerberus ship" quest or something.

Urgency enforced through choice and consequence.

Raygereio wrote...

Mind you, providing such sence of urgence  can be really difficult to do without the game becomming not fun. Players like to explore, they like to see what's happening around corner Y, when the game tells them to around corner X. And one should never punish the player, especially not for doing something as innocent as looking at your level design, or doing one of the side mission. But I'm all for having small consequences that don't greatly impact the player's ability to play the game, but stil can provide a feedback of "you did this".

Well, it's quite unavoidable with a story like Mass Effect's, or most BioWare games, or most RPGs period but it simply relies on the game not forcing an artificial sense of urgency onto the player that makes them feel as if time is of the essence. Witcher 2 does this very well, for example. To a lesser degree, so does Fallout 3 where the sense of urgency only occurs at the end of the main quest line. I'd even say that Dragon Age 2 handles this area quite well, too. Conversely, Origins was bad at this, same with both Mass Effects and yes, New Vegas as well.

But like I demonstrated with my example above, I'm not really for a literal timer, just one where the player is given consequences for failing to respond to the game's sense of urgency.

Modifié par mrcrusty, 28 juin 2011 - 11:27 .

[OdanUrr]

I'll say it again: not another Majora's Mask!

[tobynator89]

OdanUrr wrote...

I'll say it again: not another Majora's Mask!

but that was the best godamn zelda game that has ever been made