Don't make time based quests

[Game_Exile]

My opinion is that every quest should be on a timer. There probably shouldn't be main (or mandatory) quests, but each failed quest can maybe move you closer to a "bad" ending, and each successful one closer to a "good" ending.

[zero]

Oh boy, I had to register just to reply to that one...

Please, DO time based quests! For me, this is the single defining aspect of fallout. You can do whatever you want... but there will be consequences.

The sky is falling and the player is wandering around doing side quests. His punishment is more than justified.
Heck, I think I'll go to the "What to Include" forum and ask for time-based quests.

[Mandemon]

Having both is good. In Fallout 1 it gave you sense of urgency, drove you forward on your quest. After that, it removed the time limit, tough originally they intended to keep it but changed because test player found it bad idea.

So having long term goal with reasonable time limit is good. The time limit should be long enough to allow player to do some exploring and stuff.

It all depends on quest. Some quest need a sense of urgency and thus time limit is good. Some things aren't "Get it done ASAP or we are all SSOB", so player should have plenty of time.

[Drool]

After that, it removed the time limit, tough originally they intended to keep it but changed because test player found it bad idea.

What version did you play? I lost my first playthrough because the hidden timer ran out and the Super Mutants slaughtered Vault 13.

[cah]

What version did you play? I lost my first playthrough because the hidden timer ran out and the Super Mutants slaughtered Vault 13.

A patched one.

[Drool]

Hm. I wonder which version GOG has. If it's the patched version, it's time to start hunting random encounters instead of beating the game at level 8 again.

[Mandemon]

After that, it removed the time limit, tough originally they intended to keep it but changed because test player found it bad idea.

What version did you play? I lost my first playthrough because the hidden timer ran out and the Super Mutants slaughtered Vault 13.

Patched, I think. It's been a long time and I have lost the original CD. I doodled who knows how long and still beat the game without Super Mutants ever slaughtering Vault 13.

[malthaussen]

I'm gravedigging just to add mtcw. Having any sort of timer on the "Main quest" (assuming there is a main quest) will be an absolute deal-breaker for me. In my one play of Fallout, I unknowingly triggered the Mutant March of Death at an absurdly early point in the game; by the time I had finished and Saved the World... the World had already been destroyed. Everything but Vault 13 was gone. I was so outraged I demanded my money back (my local EB had an enlightened policy on returns in those days), and I never played it again. And when F2 came out, I waited years before sticking my toe back in the water, and only jumped in after reading reviews and walkthroughs to be assured that I would not be ripped off like that a second time.

A timed story element can add to the narrative, but only if the time-critical nature of the quest is made explicit from the start. Blowing it could have consequences down the line -- if I don't get the influenza medicine to Nome before the clock runs out, maybe somebody dies who would have been useful in a later story element -- but should not break the only possibility of completing that later story element. George may die of the 'flu, and so the easiest path to solve the Case of the Missing Hamster may be lost -- but there should be other ways to rescue poor old Boo.

I agree, "the bandits are holding my wife hostage and will kill her if she isn't rescued" not being timed seems pretty silly -- but consider that what triggers that quest is my group entering the area, not an independent timeline that proceeds no matter what I do. That's pretty silly, too -- if I first enter Junktown on day 27, the bandits have just taken Betty hostage, and if I first enter on day 45 -- why, the bandits have just taken Betty hostage! The element of contrivance is present no matter what, so it becomes a point of personal preference which element(s) of contrivance we'll settle for.

-- Mal

[Zombra]

Haven't read the thread. Just wanted to pop in and say that I like a time limit. I like time pressure. I like missions that I can fail. And I hate the feeling that everything in the world is just sitting around frozen in amber waiting for me to show up.

I don't like hidden time limits. It would be lame if the game suddenly said, it's been 3 months since game start and the Guardians have built their bomb to blow up the Earth, you lose. If time pressure is there, I need to know about it.

I also think that finishing the game should not have a time limit, although it is okay if the "main quest" has a few time-based events along the way. Particularly if you can fail them and still continue the game.

[Hiver]

Time limited quest should be... limited themselves.

They should be used only in places where common sense would expect it and they should NEVER - EVER mean "game over".

example one: kidnapping or hostage situation
- i dont think there is anyone (sane) that would actually complain if this was a time limited quest.

example two: bringing is supplies or medicine to a location that needs it in a life or death situation
- makes sense right? - edit- it makes so much sense that i feel i dont need to say anything more.



Additionally, none of these situations should end with simply "mission failed" note.
It is much more preferable to have some further simple but logical consequences to each situation i took as examples.
Even Fallout general time limit would have worked much better if it wasnt just a "game over" trick - but that wasnt possible to implement because of money and ... hah... time constraints.



Also... had a bit of talk about it recently in rpgcodex thread that started because of the blog post of Chris Avellone:

http://www.rpgcodex.net/forums/index.ph ... its.72313/

[people]

The problem with Fallout's timer was that it wasn't due to something about the quest but a hardcoded limit in the game itself. The game just ended randomly for no apparent reason (and Fallout 2 had the same limit).

I would argue the opposite of the OP and say that most major quests (where it's applicable) should be timed. It just doesn't make sense to have the enemy army marching towards the city and yet to have no punishment for messing around in the wilderness for 6 months.

Urgent quests (where you have to save people etc) should be actually urgent.

[snakeoil]

time limits work on single side quests or mid-quest, like leave the building before it blows, but having a timelimit on the main game doesnt make sense in a rpg. its more a adventure kinda thing. this is wasteland 2, not mercenary 2 damocles.
no time limits for me. if some sidequest is urgent (someones drowning) and you dont help immediately just let the quest fail, but please no main quest time limits like fallout had. brrr

[Aarek]

Yeah, I wouldn't mind timed-missions for normal side missions and what not but not the main mission/story plot of the game. That would give me pressure I really dislike to have when I know I have to complete the main story of a game within a certain about of time because I will feel as if I must rush my playthrough instead of take my time exploring the vast world that is out there waiting to be explored.

That being said, I really would prefer for Wasteland 2 to not end once you complete the main story, was the original Wasteland like that? Does anybody know? Who even better does anybody know any confirmation from anyone at InXile saying whether or not we'll still be able to continue playing once the main story is completed? I may of missed it at some point if they have.

[FXguy]

I'm not a big fan of even having side quests. To me, that's development time that could have been better spent improving the main story.

I describe the kind of adventure you are suggesting as "string of pearls" plot design: A leads directly to be B which leads directly to C, etc. It's like for the entire game, you are being led around by a ring in your nose. Your freedom of choice is seriously curtailed. Which in turn makes the game drastically less immersive. You're NOT "living" in this game world. Instead, you're just a puppet-on-a-string.

This is just how Diablo III is. They lead you straight from 1 thing to the next. I love Diablo, but the story is VERY linear. I'd prefer an open world in Wasteland, where I can go do what I want when I want. I don't want to be led by the nose from one thing to the next.

[FXguy]

Time limited quest should be... limited themselves.

They should be used only in places where common sense would expect it and they should NEVER - EVER mean "game over".

example one: kidnapping or hostage situation
- i dont think there is anyone (sane) that would actually complain if this was a time limited quest.

example two: bringing is supplies or medicine to a location that needs it in a life or death situation
- makes sense right? - edit- it makes so much sense that i feel i dont need to say anything more.



Additionally, none of these situations should end with simply "mission failed" note.
It is much more preferable to have some further simple but logical consequences to each situation i took as examples.
Even Fallout general time limit would have worked much better if it wasnt just a "game over" trick - but that wasnt possible to implement because of money and ... hah... time constraints.



Also... had a bit of talk about it recently in rpgcodex thread that started because of the blog post of Chris Avellone:

http://www.rpgcodex.net/forums/index.ph ... its.72313/

I agree with all this. I think timed quests should be in there where they make sense. And yeah, not being able to complete something in the given time-limit shouldn't just end with 'You Failed!". The results should have lingering consequences/effects of some sort.

[CaptainPatch]

example one: kidnapping or hostage situation
- i dont think there is anyone (sane) that would actually complain if this was a time limited quest.

I think that situations like this need [Edit] NOT necessarily end disastrously. For instance, in most every kidnap situation movie, it seems like delay = dead kidnap victim. Often enough, it would seem like "too late" could simply mean that the investigator didn't solve the case fast enough to catch the kidnapper. As a result, the ransom gets paid and the kidnapper gets away -- and the kidnapped victim is safely returned to his/her family/loved ones. Having the kidnapper get the money and kill the victim has just gotten sooooo cliche. Same goes for hostage situations: receive their demands, don't receive them; it seems like hostages are almost _always_ corpses-waiting-to-happen. [sarcasm] It seems like there's just no honor to be had amongst kidnappers and hostage-takers these days. [/sarcasm]

[Hiver]

Well yeah... i was speaking generally and thinking about it being set up in a way that the player is the one who needs to deliver the ransom, or deal with the situation in other ways before the time runs out.

specifics schmenitics...and all that

Point being you should not be able to go dilly dandling around and then return much later and still have the situation waiting for you. instead, have angry parents waiting for you, the whole community despising you, cousins coming after you, parents hiring some thugs to kill you, inviting you for a dinner then giving you rat poisoned food (if they are too poor to hire thugs), or a younger brother or sister attacking you with a stolen gun... and so on and so forth..

[CaptainPatch]

YES!!!>>>

Point being you should not be able to go dilly dandling around and then return much later and still have the situation waiting for you.

<<<YES!!!

[Gabriel77Dan]

If it makes sense for the writing of a quest then it has to be a time-based quest.
Nothing more ridiculous than someone going "Oh shit! We need to stop X fast!" Then you go off picking flowers instead.

[Hasenklein]

Personally, I don't like to have a gaming world that so to say sits there and waits for the characters to act.

Rather, I'd like to have a dynamic gaming world that features characters or groups with own agendas, who become stronger over time, who take action rather than sitting around doing nothing, and who's course of action consequently changes the appearance of the wastelands.

Such a dynamic gaming world effectively be time-based, at least to some degree, as the actions of others will consequently shape and determine the player's options.