93 réponses à ce sujet

[duckley]

No, no, no, no, no,no,no,no

[metatheurgist]

IMO the situation shown in the demo was not a timed quest. It was a timed battle. Totally different.

[Fast Jimmy]

Medhia Nox wrote...

@eluvianix: But fortunately he states very clearly that you can go back to them.

I honestly don't understand a completionists worries... there's nothing (so far) indicating places will be closed off by timed limit type events.

Honestly - if you're defending a keep, chances are you were already through that area before to take it in the first place.

If a game is going to be leisurely - it should tell me. If a game is going to imply importance of something - then it should show me.

Bolded for importance

I think this is crucial. This is a Keep you've already conquered and staffed. This isn't a brand new location. Similar with the village - we are told that these are people we know from previously in the game (hence the video of Varric's reaction), that we have rallied to the Inquisition's cause. This isn't the first time we've entered these places, seen its people, explored its content. 

Does that change anyone in this thread's mind? I'm doubting it, but it is worth mentioning. 

[Magehand2278]

agreed !!

SirJoeofthePub wrote...

Bleh. I really like the direction they are taking DA:I and if done right will make up for DA:2 in my eyes. However, having timed quests / events only serves a defeatists purpose. Why have a semi open world with grand locations and grand secrets when you just force the players to power through the game?

If it's only one or two big quests that are timed (like major sieges that you can initiate on your own time) then I can live with that, but if DA becomes a power play, timed and quicktime extravaganza, then no sale from me.

[Magehand2278]

All these persons that are saying you can come back are missing the point of a time quest...a time quest means you have to do just the bare minimum, you take the wrong turn, restart, your characters start a conversation can't stop... want to level up before going to a destination can't not enough time, it limits your gaming experience, not everyone who plays the game wants to play it like that, some might want to save the world but level up as much as possible, search about, the world was endanger before you arrive, it would be after one should play the game how they choose not how someone else plays it, is that the R in RPG's

[Swaggerjking]

If the whole game was timed I be mad but it's not there need to be times where you have to make a choice where it doesn't matter on ability but on the cold hard fact of life you can't have everything ****** in saint row 3 where in the end you choose who to go save or who to get but Would love to see it a couple times and still have the illusions of being to save both people

[fiveforchaos]

When used in the right place timed quests can really give a game a nice boost of adrenaline. Archangel's health bar during his recruitment mission is an excellent example of this. So I'm definitely in favor of having a few in DA:I

I am however, a bit worried that the "defend to keep" scenario might become a particularly common occurrence. My play style tends to be pretty leisurely, too many timed quests in a row would stress me out big time.

But I guess that's what playtesters are for. Given my past experience with Bioware games, I trust the devs to find the right balance between stressful and fun.

Modifié par fiveforchaos, 19 novembre 2013 - 06:18 .

[Fetunche]

I don't mind if optional side quests are timed, I'll just ignore them.

[Gnoster]

 Talking about timed quests in generel it's hard for me to say whether I'm against it or not, it really depends on the context in which it is implemented and the manner of how it's implemented.

If we take the preview as an example; this is an area where you as the protagonist clearly has been before, because the keep is yours. Now the situation calls for your return due to an attack. In this regard adding a real time limit (pausing when I pause the game) is acceptable, as the situation calls for action not delaying. The preview seemed to provide enough time for 1-2 mid-quests before entering the keep if the party was powerful enough.

However if we make up another example: The first time you enter a new map zone, you run into the first questgiver in the area, which provides a timed quest based on real-time. While one could argue it's choice, all it does in my opinion is force a stressed choice on you, and that approach is not good game mechanics. Here - if timing is absolutely necessary - the ME2 the OP mentioned is a lot better.

[Fast Jimmy]

Magehand2278 wrote...

All these persons that are saying you can come back are missing the point of a time quest...a time quest means you have to do just the bare minimum, you take the wrong turn, restart, your characters start a conversation can't stop... want to level up before going to a destination can't not enough time, it limits your gaming experience, not everyone who plays the game wants to play it like that, some might want to save the world but level up as much as possible, search about, the world was endanger before you arrive, it would be after one should play the game how they choose not how someone else plays it, is that the R in RPG's

I don't get this argument. 

Are you saying that being able to take your time, stroll around at your leisure and have any conversation you'd like when troops are slaughtering people is good roleplaying? 

[Reznore57]

Those type of quest like the one in the demo don't bother me at all.
You know what's going on ....
What I do not like is when the game isn't warning you , in ME2 after the normandy get attacked , the more quests you do before rescuing your crew , the more chance you will find them turned into a bloody jello....
So you have to guess which quests you need to do in a hurry and which you can just take your time.
I do not read the dev minds , so I metagame the game just to not have that type of surprises.

[redwarf]

Pressedcat wrote...

I could equally argue that it breaks my immersion when given an urgent quest that I'm told I must complete immediately, and then find there is no consequence if I dither about for an hour collecting potion ingredients.

Also, it is entirely realistic that during the overarching quest there are a few incidences with far more marked deadlines.

You seem to be jumping the gun somewhat by saying you are against this gameplay element when we have no details other than a short video of a very early version of the game. BioWare will be testing out new gameplay elements, such as these timed events, so they may very well drop them if they prove unpopular amongst testers.

You could argue that offcourse, and being your opinion it's just as valid as mine, but I'll feel kinda bad for your immersion since likely most of the game isn't timed.

Why am I jumping the gun? I don't like this, same way some players might not like the conversation wheel or whatever else. That's exactly the reason I posted this, to voice my opinion.

[luna1124]

No timed quests please.

[Hainkpe]

Yes! Yes, please!

[David7204]

It's generally a pretty poor idea to punish players for exploring the world they're given. Which is precisely what timed quests tend to do.

[dragonwanderer]

I would prefer no timed quest at all.
I suck at them...at least a few times I encountered them in certain games.
I had to reload over and over because you know I'm just so slow.

[chuckles471]

I know timed quests can be stressesful and frustrating, but isn't that the point. To give you somewhat the same feelings as your characters.

It gives you more investment in the mission and makes you prepare more. C'mon it looks kinda stupid when you are supposed to be in hurry but after every battle you can wait around healing and gaining mana.
Or the best one, you start a quest where the story tells that your characters need to be somewhere quick. While you go on a 1 hour side quest and still make it on time because there is no failure state.

Don't get me wrong, the game should also give an abundance of opportunities to go exploring without time pressure.

[David7204]

This is a game. A game is meant to be fun. So no, you're really not supposed to be feeling like your player character, if that feeling is unhappy and completely unfun rushed agitation.

Forcing the player to rush to quests they don't want to do, run through areas they want to explore, and ignore characters and activities that interest them is forcing them to have less fun. Make the game less of a game and more tedious, unentertaining, work.

As Weekes said, the optimal way to play a game should never be doing something that isn't fun.

Modifié par David7204, 19 novembre 2013 - 02:02 .

[chuckles471]

David7204 wrote...

This is a game. A game is meant to be fun. So no, you're really not supposed to be feeling like your player character, if that feeling is unhappy and completely unfun rushed agitation.

Forcing the player to rush to quests they don't want to do, run through areas they want to explore, and ignore characters and activities that interest them is forcing them to have less fun. Make the game less of a game and more tedious, unentertaining, work.

As Weekes said, the optimal way to play a game should never be doing something that isn't fun.

I don't like 18 kilometres into a 20 kilometre run.  It's painful and stressesful.  But I do it because the sense of accomplishment after it, which is very enjoyable.  Not everything has to be fun to have positive outcomes.

Modifié par chuckles471, 19 novembre 2013 - 02:12 .

[Pressedcat]

redwarf wrote...

You could argue that offcourse, and being your opinion it's just as valid as mine, but I'll feel kinda bad for your immersion since likely most of the game isn't timed.

As I stated, I think the timer feels entirely appropriate at points in the game at which BioWare wants to impart a particular sense of urgency, such as when the keep is under attack and the Inquisitor must immediately react. At other times in the game the Inquisitor will be exploring new regions, consolodating power bases or negotiating with NPC's, and the timer would be uneccessary; which is mirrored by the absence of a timer in the rest of the 30 min demo which is the only example of gameplay we have yet seen.

Why am I jumping the gun? I don't like this, same way some players might not like the conversation wheel or whatever else. That's exactly the reason I posted this, to voice my opinion.

Again, you are entirely within your rights to say that you do not like the idea of timed events in principal. You (or perhaps others) do seem to be making an awful lot of assumptions as to how exactly the timer works, and what effect it will have on the overall gameplay. There is absolutely no reason to believe we will not be able to return to places we were forced to rush through during a timed event (or indeed that we had not already thoroughly explored the region in the first place), nor that the time restraints will be so severe that we will have litterally no time whatsoever to even pause (in the demo they were able to pause to set light to the invaders' ships, and allthough in the cavern the narrator states they did not have the time to stop to investigate the cave paintings, this was as likely due to them wanting to maintain the sense of urgency in the demo/avoid having to develop more game resources, as it was that time was so tight they were unable to do so).

Nor do we have any reason to believe there will be any great preponderence of such time-limited events; we are simply shown a single example in order to show a new style of mission. And it is only a single, short mission; the time between being told that a keep and village are under attack, making a decision, and then acting upon that choice. It simply looks as though instead of asking us to make a decision between options A, B, or C and then placing us at the corresponding point on the map, they are leaving us to make our decision and then physically rush to that area (or indeed witness the people we are not aiding and perhaps change our minds). This to me feels more naturalistic than warping, but maintains the immediacy of the choice.

You have every right to say you don't like a certain gameplay element, but you seem to hold this dislike because you assume it precludes your preferred style of game-play. I say you are jumping the gun because other than knowing that there are timed missions planned, we have absolutely no knowledge as to how they are to be implemented, other than they may involve making choices and sacrificing people/content (which would still be the case even if there were no timer).

[David7204]

chuckles471 wrote...

David7204 wrote...

This is a game. A game is meant to be fun. So no, you're really not supposed to be feeling like your player character, if that feeling is unhappy and completely unfun rushed agitation.

Forcing the player to rush to quests they don't want to do, run through areas they want to explore, and ignore characters and activities that interest them is forcing them to have less fun. Make the game less of a game and more tedious, unentertaining, work.

As Weekes said, the optimal way to play a game should never be doing something that isn't fun.

I don't like 18 kilometres into a 20 kilometre run.  It's painful and stressesful.  But I do it because the sense of accomplishment after it, which is very enjoyable.  Not everything has to be fun to have positive outcomes.

Any amount of tedium, poorly designed gameplay, and frustration could be justified by that reasoning.

This is not a marathon. It's a video game. People do not play them to test their endurence. They play them for entertainment.

Modifié par David7204, 19 novembre 2013 - 02:15 .

[Magehand2278]

I am saying is someone is slaughtering a troop as you put it, it should be my decision if i want to go to it immediately or take explore do other activities and not be penalized for it... it's a game for crying out loud it should be built for different persons to have fun in different ways

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Magehand2278 wrote...

All these persons that are saying you can come back are missing the point of a time quest...a time quest means you have to do just the bare minimum, you take the wrong turn, restart, your characters start a conversation can't stop... want to level up before going to a destination can't not enough time, it limits your gaming experience, not everyone who plays the game wants to play it like that, some might want to save the world but level up as much as possible, search about, the world was endanger before you arrive, it would be after one should play the game how they choose not how someone else plays it, is that the R in RPG's

I don't get this argument. 

Are you saying that being able to take your time, stroll around at your leisure and have any conversation you'd like when troops are slaughtering people is good roleplaying? 

[f37]

I'm OK with timed quests, especially if playing the game well can be rewarded, that is save keep and village. If you stop to pick daises when a village is under attack, that seems like a priority issue which has consequences.

[chuckles471]

David7204 wrote...

chuckles471 wrote...

David7204 wrote...

This is a game. A game is meant to be fun. So no, you're really not supposed to be feeling like your player character, if that feeling is unhappy and completely unfun rushed agitation.

Forcing the player to rush to quests they don't want to do, run through areas they want to explore, and ignore characters and activities that interest them is forcing them to have less fun. Make the game less of a game and more tedious, unentertaining, work.

As Weekes said, the optimal way to play a game should never be doing something that isn't fun.

I don't like 18 kilometres into a 20 kilometre run.  It's painful and stressesful.  But I do it because the sense of accomplishment after it, which is very enjoyable.  Not everything has to be fun to have positive outcomes.

Any amount of tedium, poorly designed gameplay, and frustration could be justified by that reasoning.

This is not a marathon. It's a video game. People do not play them to test their endurence. They play them for entertainment.

Yes, it's a video game but it's also a role playing game.  Y'know the kind of game that is trying to get you heavily invested in a character's story and feelings, that Bioware has been making for ages.
Also entertainment means different things to different people.  Some people actually find adversity and challenge entertaining

[David7204]

The fact that it's a 'role playing game' means utterly nothing one way or the other. I do hope we're not resorting to "You disagree, you obviously hate role playing' arguments.

This is not 'adversity and challenge.' It's just limiting the player's fun.