237 réponses à ce sujet

[AlanC9]

I haven't seen any substantive discussion of this, but in the Gamescom press conference at 2:15 we see Leliana and Josephine proposing different approaches to the Serpent of Nevarra problem. Leliana's approach (assassination) requires "Time 3:12:00," while Josephine's approach (diplomacy) requires "Time 4:00:00."

So time is one of the resources we'll have to allocate, eh? Anyone know of a discussion about how that will work? Does this mean that we won't be able to do everything in one playthrough?

[90s Luke]

They have mentioned that some quests and locations will be locked based on your actions, so some people won't be able to complete everything in one playthrough. This isn't really related to time management, but it addresses that last question of yours.

[Wulfram]

Given the formatting, it seems like it's in hours.  Which to make any sense would almost have to be real time.  Though that seems silly.

[CENIC]

I WISH time was the only constraint! That would mean you could potentially experience everything in one playthrough. It does sound like content will be mutually exclusive based on your decisions.

[deuce985]

I personally loathe time restraints in games. I don't like being rushed into doing things or deciding this just because it seems like the fastest solution. In that PAX demo they were on time constraints. I hope that's kept to a minimum in the game. Forced pacing is annoying in games.

 

On the subject of what you're asking I'm expecting time is not the only constraint and we'll be locked out of some content in the game. Just looking at the PAX demo that seemed like an incident where you could easily lock yourself out depending on what choices you made. I'm sure some points in DAI will have multiple conflicts going on that are all time sensitive and you're going to have to make a sacrifice somewhere. I'm someone who wants to see more consequence in actions so I'm willing to sacrifice being forced into a specific pace in order to see that consequence.

[CronoDragoon]

So time is one of the resources we'll have to allocate, eh? Anyone know of a discussion about how that will work? Does this mean that we won't be able to do everything in one playthrough?

 

With the way they've been talking about branching paths I'm pretty sure you indeed won't be able to see everything in one playthrough.

 

As for time, it could be constrained, or it could be like Assassin's Creed where it simply takes X amount of time, with no overarching time limit that necessitates either/or scenarios. The time in Assassin's Creed mainly functioned as a method to space the missions so that the player couldn't roll through them quickly, not as a game mechanism to promote either/or choices.

[TheGusWho]

Given the formatting, it seems like it's in hours.  Which to make any sense would almost have to be real time.  Though that seems silly.

 

I think it's more likely to be days, just based on the split-up of the time. As in, it'll take Josephine 4 days to complete the task, but it will take Lelianna 3 1/2 days.

 

My theory is that the time won't be something we "use up," but rather will be game time in which these advisors will be away from Skyhold; so if Josephine is sent to deal with Nevarra and is gone for 4 days, for the 4 in-game days we won't have her available to help with anything else. Ditto Lelianna. Cullen I can see as possibly using power rather than time, because he'll direct troops but won't actually go himself. That's what I'm guessing, anyway.

[frylock23]

It might also be that there are events that you know will be happening at certain points in time, and depending on how you manage your other options, you may or may not be able to cover everything else. Obviously, just like in reality, the better you are at time management, the more you will be able to accomplish.

 

If that's the case, it wouldn't bother me. I like that they're trying to create a game with replayability. That was one of the things that was so sad about DA2 - there just wasn't enough there to make me want to play it again and again. There wasn't enough variation between playthroughs. If this does force you to change your mind in how you make choices or choose your paths from one playthrough to the next ... would that really be a bad thing?

[AlanC9]

As for time, it could be constrained, or it could be like Assassin's Creed where it simply takes X amount of time, with no overarching time limit that necessitates either/or scenarios. The time in Assassin's Creed mainly functioned as a method to space the missions so that the player couldn't roll through them quickly, not as a game mechanism to promote either/or choices.

This wouldn't be the first element they took from AC, from what I've heard.

[Wulfram]

 

‏@Mike_Laidlaw 7m

The war table is real time, but there are ways in the game to speed it up. Those was are NOT "money", before anyone asks.

 

 

I'm not keen at all.  It seems very artificial and disconnected from any in game reality.  And it'll just get in the way if you're focusing on the main plot rather than wasting time.

[Jawzzus]

User

@Mike_Laidlaw  Real time as in it will complete even if the game is off, or is it real time as in it takes that amount of play time?

 

Mike Laidlaw ‏@Mike_Laidlaw

The former.

 

Here's his follow up to that, I didn't include it in the twitter thread

[Xerxes52]

User
@Mike_Laidlaw  Real time as in it will complete even if the game is off, or is it real time as in it takes that amount of play time?
 
Mike Laidlaw ‏@Mike_Laidlaw
The former.
 
Here's his follow up to that, I didn't include it in the twitter thread

That's awesome. I'm happy about that.

[Icy Magebane]

I guess if these things can be completed while the game is off, that's a small consolation.  I still think 4 hours is way too long.  The way that's structured, it would be better for me to turn off the system entirely rather than continue playing and try to wait out the time requirement.  If I play for too long, I'll run out of things to do as I wait for the 4 hours to pass... hm... yeah, I can't say that I like how this sounds.

[dekkerd]

I guess if these things can be completed while the game is off, that's a small consolation.  I still think 4 hours is way too long.  The way that's structured, it would be better for me to turn off the system entirely rather than continue playing and try to wait out the time requirement.  If I play for too long, I'll run out of things to do as I wait for the 4 hours to pass... hm... yeah, I can't say that I like how this sounds.

Sounds like how AC4 works. Personally never saw it as a burden, hopefully the same here.

[Icy Magebane]

Sounds like how AC4 works. Personally never saw it as a burden, hopefully the same here.

I've never played Assassin's Creed.  This system sounds like it will force me to play in short bursts or else I'll run out of quests while I wait for these missions to complete.  Am I missing something?

[Giantdeathrobot]

I'm not really convinced by using real-time. I guess it does mean you'll have to get out and blowing through the game in 4 sittings means you will miss content.

 

If it was like 20-30 minutes I would be fine with it. 4 hours is pretty damn long for one mission even if you speed it up.

[RedWulfi]

Maybe its 4 day in game time? Like when it goes from night to day? Maybe? xD

[dekkerd]

I've never played Assassin's Creed. This system sounds like it will force me to play in short bursts or else I'll run out of quests while I wait for these missions to complete. Am I missing something?

These quests aren't for you or your team. The advisors handle the timed missions. Plot important ones are handled directly by you.

[TheTurtle]

I've never played Assassin's Creed.  This system sounds like it will force me to play in short bursts or else I'll run out of quests while I wait for these missions to complete.  Am I missing something?

The way it works in AC is that the missions are completely optional and only really serve to boost influence and make money. These missions are never very long the and the time can change based on the number of agents and how skilled said agents are.

[Icy Magebane]

These quests aren't for you or your team. The advisors handle the timed missions. Plot important ones are handled directly by you.

No, I mean if I send such and such advisor on a 4 hour mission and then go back to playing the game, I fear I will run out of things to do with my party while I wait for this to complete.  And after that, I will need to spend another 3-4 hours killing time while the next advisor mission completes.  Am I not supposed to try to finish all of the advisor missions?  Because otherwise I fear I will run out of normal gameplay waiting for this stuff to complete...

 

If I want to do all the advisor missions, wouldn't it be more reasonable to turn off the game and do something else so that I don't end up completing all of the main missions while I wait for each advisor mission to finish?  Sounds like I'd finish the game long before these assignments run their course...

 

The way it works in AC is that the missions are completely optional and only really serve to boost influence and make money. These missions are never very long the and the time can change based on the number of agents and how skilled said agents are.

So in other words, I shouldn't try to finish them all?  Or at least, I can but don't need to?  Hm...

[Maria Caliban]

So time is one of the resources we'll have to allocate, eh?

Things take time. 'Allocation' suggests that there's only a finite amount of total time available and each action takes from that pool. As you can spend as many hours as you desire in Inquisition, that's not the case.
 

Anyone know of a discussion about how that will work?

You select an action that takes 4 hours and it finishes 4 hours later.
 
 

Does this mean that we won't be able to do everything in one playthrough?

Strictly speaking, the answer to your question is 'no.' There is no indication that actions taking a fixed amount of time is what gates off content.

However, it seems other factors mean you won't be able to do everything in one playthru.

[dekkerd]

The way it works in AC is that the missions are completely optional and only really serve to boost influence and make money. These missions are never very long the and the time can change based on the number of agents and how skilled said agents are.

AC4 trade missions could last quite awhile.

[TheTurtle]

AC4 trade missions could last quite awhile.

I only ever had that happen when I put like two level 1's on a mission that required a at least one level 10 and at that point they usually just ended up dying

[Iakus]

I'm thinking at least some of these missions will be stuff we send people on, then go spend a few hours dungeon-crawling, demon-slaying, etc, then come back to Skyhold to see how they did.

[Wulfram]

It makes no sense that agents can either teleport back and forth between distant lands in the blink of an eye, or dawdle around as the Inquisitor traipses across the continent, depending on how the game fits into the player's schedule.