Skip to content
MaximB wrote:I had no time to roam aimlessly trying to discover new things and speak to all NPC's and do ALL quests...
I remember on my first play-trough I needed 2-3 more days to finish the game, but I've failed and all my hours that I've invested were just gone forever to no return....that was a major bummer.
Game-over IS a consequence. If you can't get away from a ticking bomb in time, that's too bad.Cile wrote:The game should be about about choices, and how your choices affect other parts of the game. Therefor, if you have any sort of 'timed' quest, you should have the choice of going over that time limit and having consequences because of that, but not any sort of game over.
snakeoil wrote:time based game quests are an artificial way to raise tension. i never really liked it in fo2. better have a smart mature setting that takes time, than force the player to quit the game in a set timeframe. only short quest stuff like leaving a certain building before bomb explodes or shit like that work in a good way.
abdiel420 wrote:Time based quests? Absolutely. For example, the mayor of a small settlement has just been threatened by a new gang of raiders that set up camp nearby. They have three days to vacate the settlement, leaving everything behind, or become 'servants' of the gang (read slaves). Your group rolls into town, the mayor asks you to help. As you leave the settlement, you are approached by one of the raiders who insists that you don't interfere in their business and even offers you a cut of the money/equipment found in the town if you stay out of the way (maybe that last part can be part of a check against your body count, reputation, etc). Now, you have a few choices. You can leave the settlement, go on about some other quests, come back after 3 days and see the raiders have taken the settlement. You can kill the raider who approached you and look for the raider camp to destroy it (you know they are somewhere in the area, maybe an old mine or a ruined building close to the settlement). Or make sure you are in town on the day of the attack to help defend it with the villagers. As for a timed game, as in you have to complete a certain quest before a certain time to continue play or finish the game, that I am not ok with.
Drool wrote:You didn't know there was a timer or any sense of urgency.
cyrilverba wrote:P.S. far as i remember, the deadline for the mutant invasion was even more relaxed than for the chip. a lot more.
P.P.S. hmm, i wonder, if you head straight to necropolis and snatch the chip before the big guys arrive, does the overseer still tell you that 'from your report i can tell we have a problem'?
cah wrote:I have no problem with time-based quests, even for the main line. It is a) realistic b) results in a more intense experience i.e. "if I take this side quest will the reward pay for the lost time?" and c) allows for higher replayability.
To clarify, it would reduce the limit by 100 days, so you would get 400 days as the result, which still should be more than enough if the player is actually working on the main quest rather than slacking off. And don't forget that the player is warned about the negative consequences, so it was really intended to be used only as the last resort.StarkeRealm wrote:The water caravan would cut that time limit down sharply in the retail game. I forget the exact number (100 days, 60 days, something like that). If you didn't use the caravans it was 500 days.
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 1 guest