93 réponses à ce sujet

[Xilizhra]

I personally rarely find timed things fun, and don't think this would be an exception.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

I don't mind the concept, so long as it's implemented properly.

I like the idea of only having time in game to do 2/3 quests before the last one locks. It makes you choose which missions can be accomplished, who lives and dies, what to prioritize resources for in the game, etc. I support any game that challenges the player to actually think, rewarding the player for thinking, and punishing them for running through a game blindly.

[redwarf]

Pressedcat wrote...

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.

Let me ask you this: If there was no timer, would you play A quest (not this specific one) differently than non-timed quest? If so, how?
Also, as I said before, a UI timer is to me, a bad way to convey urgency, because it is external to the game. It is like saying "We couldn't make the player care enough, so lets tie him to the roller-coster".
And why when "exploring new regions, consolodating power bases or negotiating with NPC's" is there no timer? Is the world suddenly not facing impending doom and gloom? There is no timer because forcing players to speed run the game rather than allowing them to explore at their own pace would not be fun.

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).

I'm sorry my firend, because I feel like I'm writing the same things over and over again, you can read what I wrote in earlier posts about time=/=choice, how to convey urgency, and why time limit reduces my enjoyment of the game.

I'm not making any assumptions, I have no idea how many timed quests will be in the game, how important are they, what will be the consequences of the etc... I do however, know what I like, and what I dislike, what makes a game less fun for me to play. This is all the reason I need. If you want to rush and complete the quest ASAP, fine by me - you can do so without any artificial constraints, but why force (not you personally) me to do the same?

[chuckles471]

David7204 wrote...

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.

No, I brought up the fact that it is an RPG because a huge part of it to some people is trying to experience what the character is feeling.  For example, when Mordin scarfices himself in ME3, Bioware doesn't want you to be having fun at that moment.  It shouldn't always be about fun or the video game industry will never be taken seriously.  Do you think Schindler's List was made to be fun?

And what I think Bioware is trying to do, is trying to implament some story and role playing elements into the "combat event".  Becauase that has always been a weakness of Bioware the disconnect between the role playing and combat.
 
Also, stop speaking for everyone.

Modifié par chuckles471, 19 novembre 2013 - 03:03 .

[redwarf]

chuckles471 wrote...

No, I brought up the fact that it is an RPG because a huge part of it to some people is trying to experience what the character is feeling.  For example, when Mordin scarfices himself in ME3, Bioware doesn't want you to be having fun at that moment.  It shouldn't always be about fun or the video game industry will never be taken seriously.  Do you think Schindler's List was made to be fun?

And what I think Bioware is trying to do, is trying to implament some story and role playing elements into the "combat event".  Becauase that has always been a weakness of Bioware the disconnect between the role playing and combat.
 
Also, stop speaking for everyone.

Really? Are you comparing RPG to the holocaust? Really?
And yes, Schindler's List  was made to be, while not fun, "entertainig". It's not a documentary. You want to know the difference? Go watch Claude Lanzmann's "Shoah".

How is putting a timer improves combat? If you won, you won regardless. If you lost becasue you ran out of time, would you feel better? or worse?

Modifié par redwarf, 19 novembre 2013 - 03:12 .

[metatheurgist]

David7204 wrote...
This is not a marathon. It's a video game. People do not play them to test their endurence. They play them for entertainment.

Well, it's a less prevalent attitude now but people do play games to be challenged. They find being forced to find their limits entertaining. That was pretty much the entire point of video games before they became casual, what else would you call finishing a game on one quarter, if not a challenge? Also, isn't that why some people want action mechanics in their RPGs? So they can demonstrate their awesome physical skills instead of letting a boring dice roll determine the outcome?

[Travie]

I only dislike them when they force me to stop playing like I'd normally want to, or not fit with how I'm roleplaying my character.

[chuckles471]

redwarf wrote...

chuckles471 wrote...

No, I brought up the fact that it is an RPG because a huge part of it to some people is trying to experience what the character is feeling.  For example, when Mordin scarfices himself in ME3, Bioware doesn't want you to be having fun at that moment.  It shouldn't always be about fun or the video game industry will never be taken seriously.  Do you think Schindler's List was made to be fun?

And what I think Bioware is trying to do, is trying to implament some story and role playing elements into the "combat event".  Becauase that has always been a weakness of Bioware the disconnect between the role playing and combat.
 
Also, stop speaking for everyone.

Really? Are you comparing RPG to the holocaust? Really?
And yes, Schindler's List  was made to be, while not fun, "entertainig". It's not a documentary. You want to know the difference? Go watch Claude Lanzmann's "Shoah".

How is putting a timer improves combat? If you won, you won regardless. If you lost becasue you ran out of time, would you feel better? or worse?

Comparing a great movie about the holocaust to making games better, isn't the same as comparing a game to the actual holocaust.  So please take your fake outrage somewhere else.  Also when did I say it was a documentary?  Yes, it was made to be "entertaining" but it also had moments that were supposed to horrify, make you uncomfortable and think.

Yes that's it, you lost because you ran out of time.  Your combat and exploration had a direct effect on the story, some people would love this.

[Pressedcat]

redwarf wrote...

Let me ask you this: If there was no timer, would you play A quest (not this specific one) differently than non-timed quest? If so, how?
Also, as I said before, a UI timer is to me, a bad way to convey urgency, because it is external to the game. It is like saying "We couldn't make the player care enough, so lets tie him to the roller-coster".
And why when "exploring new regions, consolodating power bases or negotiating with NPC's" is there no timer? Is the world suddenly not facing impending doom and gloom? There is no timer because forcing players to speed run the game rather than allowing them to explore at their own pace would not be fun.

To answer your question, yes I would likely play a mission differently if there was no timer. Like you, I'm a completionist, and so would be tempted to stop to loot all the items I find on my path, talk to all NPC's I met and generally get sidetracked. And after doing all this, I'd go complete the quest. Then, after completing the mission, I'd ask myself 'what happened to all that act now or face the consequences rubbish that soldier was on about?' It would become apparent that all illusions of urgency are false, and that what they say and what happens do not segue whatsoever. I've done it in the past in BioWare games, and thought the same before. Thus my natural inclinations would detract from the believability of the game. That's like saying 'We told the player this mission was urgent, but turns out that was not the case at all: do what you like, we'll have a sit down and a nice cup of tea until you finally get round to turning up.'

I say there will likely be no timer for the overarching campaign whilst out exploring etc because there was no timer in the demo whilst exploring, nor indeed any part of that demo other than the single, explicitly stated time-sensitive mission. We don't need a timer count-down for the over-arching game unless BioWare are writing a 'the asteroid impacts/world ends on a specific day' style story. Since they have made no such statement, it is entirely reasonable to assume that they will write a storyline with no such definite time-limit. Wars do not end on a specific date because that was the set end-date when the conflict started, but rather because that was how long it took for a resolution to be achieved. As you said, forcing players to speed-run the entire game would be something both you, I and many others would oppose, and for that reason BioWare will likely avoid such a story structure. Having certain time-sensitive events is an entirely seperate issue.

I'm sorry my firend, because I feel like I'm writing the same things over and over again, you can read what I wrote in earlier posts about time=/=choice, how to convey urgency, and why time limit reduces my enjoyment of the game.

I'm not making any assumptions, I have no idea how many timed quests will be in the game, how important are they, what will be the consequences of the etc... I do however, know what I like, and what I dislike, what makes a game less fun for me to play. This is all the reason I need. If you want to rush and complete the quest ASAP, fine by me - you can do so without any artificial constraints, but why force (not you personally) me to do the same?

I understand that you simply do not like the idea of any time constraints whatsoever in the game, as you feel that it would curtail your ability to play the game how you want. My point was simply that you do not know how much it will curtail you: you might find that the time constraints are so loose that you are entirely able to make your way to the necessary area at a pace you find acceptable, or you might simply feel that even after being told the fort needs urgent relief, you should be allowed to go in the opposite direction, explore some caves, fight a Dragon, make a camp, or whatever else you so desire, and still be able to come back at some later date. This latter option might simply suit how you like to play, and be far more important than maintaining the sense of realism BioWare are trying to impart.

BioWare are simply making a design choice based on past feedback and their own wish to strengthen the narrative integrity. In the past, people have complained about the contrast between the stated urgency of completing a specific task/mission, and the in game lack of consequences of not completing the task/mission in a timely manner. They have found that if they give a mission no sense of urgency other than someone saying 'this is urgent', people will infact realise after playing a couple of such missions that there geneuinely is no urgency. Now they are telling you 'this is urgent' they are showing you that the mission is urgent and has a finite deadline, and are further enforcing this urgency by implementing consequences if you do not act in time. If you want to go picking daisies whilst the house is on fire, you are free to do so: just be prepared to find yourself homeless when you finish. I think that is an interesting implementation of choice and consequence, you are entirely free to differ in opinion.

[redwarf]

Pressedcat wrote...

To answer your question, yes I would likely play a mission differently if there was no timer. Like you, I'm a completionist, and so would be tempted to stop to loot all the items I find on my path, talk to all NPC's I met and generally get sidetracked. And after doing all this, I'd go complete the quest. Then, after completing the mission, I'd ask myself 'what happened to all that act now or face the consequences rubbish that soldier was on about?' It would become apparent that all illusions of urgency are false, and that what they say and what happens do not segue whatsoever. I've done it in the past in BioWare games, and thought the same before. Thus my natural inclinations would detract from the believability of the game. That's like saying 'We told the player this mission was urgent, but turns out that was not the case at all: do what you like, we'll have a sit down and a nice cup of tea until you finally get round to turning up.'

I say there will likely be no timer for the overarching campaign whilst out exploring etc because there was no timer in the demo whilst exploring, nor indeed any part of that demo other than the single, explicitly stated time-sensitive mission. We don't need a timer count-down for the over-arching game unless BioWare are writing a 'the asteroid impacts/world ends on a specific day' style story. Since they have made no such statement, it is entirely reasonable to assume that they will write a storyline with no such definite time-limit. Wars do not end on a specific date because that was the set end-date when the conflict started, but rather because that was how long it took for a resolution to be achieved. As you said, forcing players to speed-run the entire game would be something both you, I and many others would oppose, and for that reason BioWare will likely avoid such a story structure. Having certain time-sensitive events is an entirely seperate issue.

Okay, so you're asking yourself "What's changed?" AFTER the fact. Myself, I'm "What's changed?" BEFORE the fact. That's the difference for me, if the game established as part of its set of "rules" that quests aren't time sensitive, then that's the "normal" flow of the game. When that flow is interrupted by an exception, it's jarring and potentially immersion-breaking, all the more so if it's something you as player specifically dislike.

How long does a battle takes? How long it takes to get from point A to point B? A minute? Hour? Day?
These things are all open to interpertation by the game,  and because often they are similiar in relation to the amount of real-world time the player needed to accomplish them. This is probably the main reason the game doesn't give any specific time frames. But, regardless, having certain time-sensitive events is an not entirely seperate issue to an entirely time sensitive campaign, it's merely a matter of scale.

I understand that you simply do not like the idea of any time constraints whatsoever in the game, as you feel that it would curtail your ability to play the game how you want. My point was simply that you do not know how much it will curtail you: you might find that the time constraints are so loose that you are entirely able to make your way to the necessary area at a pace you find acceptable, or you might simply feel that even after being told the fort needs urgent relief, you should be allowed to go in the opposite direction, explore some caves, fight a Dragon, make a camp, or whatever else you so desire, and still be able to come back at some later date. This latter option might simply suit how you like to play, and be far more important than maintaining the sense of realism BioWare are trying to impart.

BioWare are simply making a design choice based on past feedback and their own wish to strengthen the narrative integrity. In the past, people have complained about the contrast between the stated urgency of completing a specific task/mission, and the in game lack of consequences of not completing the task/mission in a timely manner. They have found that if they give a mission no sense of urgency other than someone saying 'this is urgent', people will infact realise after playing a couple of such missions that there geneuinely is no urgency. Now they are telling you 'this is urgent' they are showing you that the mission is urgent and has a finite deadline, and are further enforcing this urgency by implementing consequences if you do not act in time. If you want to go picking daisies whilst the house is on fire, you are free to do so: just be prepared to find yourself homeless when you finish. I think that is an interesting implementation of choice and consequence, you are entirely free to differ in opinion.

I don't want the game to limit me at all in this manner! It isn't positive in any way. The very fact of a time restriction to me is schaffing. If make it in time because I skipped some thing, I'll be annoyed because I was forced to skip something. If I fail to make it in time for some reason, I'll be annoyed that I failed. If the time limit is big enough as to meaningless, why is it there at all.

Offcourse, it is eventually a design decision from bioware. I'm merely putting out my own opinion.

[Zatche]

redwarf wrote...

When that flow is interrupted by an exception, it's jarring and potentially immersion-breaking, all the more so if it's something you as player specifically dislike.

It would be more jarring to me if something/someone was under an immediate threat, and I was allowed to take all day to save it/them. The difference between an immediate threat and an long term overarching threat makes the exception not arbitrary.

I quite like the idea of timed quests. That it interrupts the normal pace of the game is a good thing. It ramps up the tension to coincide with the plot's ups and downs. It keeps you on your toes. In one situation I can take my time, strategize, and be careful. In another, I will have to speed through to get there in time. This makes it less repetitive, which is important for a 40+ hour long game.

Modifié par Zatche, 19 novembre 2013 - 10:59 .

[ISpeakTheTruth]

Timed quests are one of the worst things to have in a game. It takes all the fun out of the game.

[dragonflight288]

I have no problems with timed quests. In fact, the devs have said that we can do everything, it'll simply be very difficult, and I like the challenge that comes with this.

[Estelindis]

I like having timed missions where appropriate. The trouble is that RPGs so often have an NPC tell us that a quest is very urgent without it actually being so. On the few occasions when a quest actually does have a time limit, it feels arbitrary. I hope that, without being insultingly mega-obvious, any timed quests in DA:I will at least make it clear that there's a limit. A timer seems like a fair way to do this, in my opinion.

[MrMrPendragon]

The only time I'd like the timed missions is when there really is an urgency.
For example:
Someone is dying, and you have to cut through the enemy's forces to rescue that person before he dies.

I guess the timer would be appropriate. But I don't like them. It forces on you a specific play-style and will reward you if you go along.

Timers don't also necessarily mean challenge. Chances are, if you find a play-style that works in that timed quest, you'll just stick to that one across all your playthroughs because you don't have the luxury of experimenting.

I too like to snoop around every rock, chest, rubble, barrel, pretty much every highlighted object in the map. Even the non-highlighted ones. I just like to observe the visuals.

[L. Han]

I might on the base level dislike timed quests as well.

But come of it, it helps create tension and makes the world slightly more vibrant and alive. Giving a sense of scale because things happen even without your presence.

At least for me...

[MiyuEmi]

My only concern with timed quests, are timed quests like those in Dragon's Dogma.  Where you have to accept the quest at a certain time or within a certain amount of time or you instantly fail it all together.  Basically quests with time limits that you didn't even know existed.  I too am a completionist, as said above, but even on timed quests, most locations can be returned to so unless I'm incapable of returning to a location to loot and investigate and area, I don't mind them.  That said, I have noticed there is a timer at some of the advisors.  Can anyone explain what this is?  Hopefully it's not a counting down timer which will make me miss a quest opportunity.

[ewauksonian]

Why is this thread necroed? 

[SofaJockey]

Is there any evidence of there being timed quests in the game?

Why re-open a dead thread?