Don't make time based quests

[geezer]

A timer will either fit in with the story or it won't. Some narratives are inherently time sensitive. Some aren't. I do enjoy that sense of urgency but only if it makes sense. It certainly shouldn't be tacked on just to encourage an artificial sense of urgency, but when appropriate I do think it can make for a more compelling game.

I find the idea that an ideal game would be so easy that you wouldn't need to save pretty funny. That's the kind of thing a console gamer might say. A game in which it is difficult to stay alive is not bad design. It is fun. Without a real challenge battles just turn into button mashing.

[Clockwork Knight]

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.

You could still discover new things, speak to new NPCs and do new quests on your second playthrough, with the option of avoiding the ones you already completed. The hours spent on your first character were not wasted, they were spent playing the game. You are not forced to do everything on single playthrough, you know.

Oblivion for example would be better if you were actually in a hurry to close dem Oblivion Gates like everyone wants you to believe, but instead you have time to become leader of all guilds at once before even entering the one in Kvatch. In fact, the invasion will never advance until you wish so, no matter how many years pass by in the in-game calendar, which is readily accessible at all times in your inventory. This didn't simply eliminate the sense of urgency and the thrill that comes with it, it dragged the poor things into an alley and broke their legs before shooting them in the back of the head.

[Cile]

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.

[cah]

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.

Game-over IS a consequence. If you can't get away from a ticking bomb in time, that's too bad.

[Crinkles]

I don't mind time-based quests. Indeed, they add some actual pressure and sense of urgency to your mission, which is a good thing. However, the caveat is that the timer should not be permanent, if that makes sense. Fallout has the timer turned on for the whole game, which discourages exploration and doing sidequests. I'd much prefer a few individual quests to have a timer---once you complete the quest successfully, you are once more free to roam.

[snakeoil]

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.

[Crinkles]

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.

"Short quest stuff" is basically my preference for timed quests, as well. Timing can add urgency in specific situations, but in a big game like Wasteland 2 you don't want to be hurrying players along all the darn time.

[abdiel420]

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.

[Azriel]

Hell no, I can't stand time based quests. I like to take my time and explore every nook and cranny in a game. Having a timer you have to keep track of just kills the fun, because I have to hurry through the game because of some stupid artificial pressure. The only thing worse than time based quests are nanny/protect your follower quests because you always get stuck with a character who can't fight and dies from a paper cut. Oh, and they send a horde of super killers that go right for the person you protect. Nope, no fun at all. So no, please no time based quests.

[StarkeRealm]

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.

I'll admit, I'm not a huge fan of Timed quests, for a number of reasons, but this I could get behind. Where you basically have a couple of days if you don't leave the area. I particularly like the idea that a timed quest expiring doesn't end the quest, but triggers a new state.

Using your example: When you come into town the clock starts at 3 days. After 3 days, the raiders will attack, if you're there or not. If you're there it will be a massive town wide combat, if you've evacuated the settlement, or if you've reinforced it, then you'll participate. If you leave, then the settlement is overrun, the settlers are taken as slaves, and the settlement pillaged.

During those three days you can either get the settlement ready to evacuate, get the settlement ready to fight, or hunt down the raider camp yourself. (If there was a mechanic for calling in additional rangers, this could open up some other options as well, such as getting a squad of NPC rangers to reinforce the settlement while you hunted for the raiders.)

For sidequests, I think this could be fine, but, having seen specific time/place triggers go horribly wrong (in Call of Pripyat), I'd suggest against tying the time based quests to the world time at all, only to player actions (IE: once you're in position X, talked to Person Y, or picked up macguffin Z, the clock starts).

Also, time based quests should probably be mutually exclusive or fairly rare, so that players never end up in the position of "I'm doing this FedEx with a 7 day limit, it's day 5 and the destination is two days away, but now I just found this settlement with a 3 day limit." It sets up an interesting dilemma for the player, but it also has a real potential of making the player feel screwed over.

...though, honestly, games have gotten away from hard choices like that, so, I could kind of get behind that if it was implemented well.

[Headcrusher]

Dead ends are not bad... as long as you can recover from them without too much groaning (i.e. multiple saves). Putting a timer on the MAIN storyline can be a real drag if you want to explore (like I usually do). This counts double if the time limit isn't clear or visible for most of the game.

deadlines should be on individual quests where they make sense. If I have to run to Vegas to rescue someone from certain death, I shouldn't have the time to rob 20 casinos before I bring in the cavalry.

But if I'm simply gathering resources for a big assault on the Guardian Citadel, time limits aren't necessary.

[Drool]

Depends on how they're done. Luckily, the original Fallout provides both examples!

Water chip: Fine. You had a visible counter that you saw pretty much every time you turned out. It was a very generous timer and there was a way to extend it if you flailing about lost (like I was my first play through). This was a timed quest, but it wasn't obnoxious and if you ran out of time, you really only had yourself to blame.

Super-mutant invasion: This one was bullshit. You didn't know there was a timer or any sense of urgency. This was really kind of a dick move. And since there was no visible timer (and you had no way of knowing you were even being timed) it could result in not just a game over, but a need to restart the game. Yes, Fallout had multiple save slots, but if you didn't use all that many (or only used one), you could find yourself in a situation where it was impossible to finish, even with a reload.

Doing the first in limited amounts is fine. Doing the second at all blows.

[cyrilverba]

You didn't know there was a timer or any sense of urgency.

err.. WHAT?? by the time you'd finished the water chip quest you should have got multiple evidence of the mutant threat, and for those who don't read dialogues there's the overseer's talking head specifically stating that some major shit's ready to hit the fan.

what exactly didn't you like? or the master had to send you a letter of intent?

P.S. as 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'?

[StarkeRealm]

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'?

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.

The original patch removed the mutant invasion, I think, if you didn't use the caravans, and set the limit to 500 days. As I recall, anyway.

Also, if you head straight to Necropolis, you still encounter the super mutants there, and the Overseer still sends you back out to investigate.

[ShadowScythe]

I personally prefer 'time limits' in the sense of how many quests or flags you hit rather than a proper countdown timer.

One gives you urgency in the sense that "don't go off and do another quest until you get this one done first" while the other can punish you for simply taking too long from travelling from one area to the next.

It was annoying in Fallout 1 to have a timer for the waterchip/Master cause I really wanted to explore the world but simply walking around the overmap to find new places was screwing me over.

It would also often be annoying to go and find the waterchip and then not be able to finish the quest because travelling back to Vault 13 took too long.

[groundwalker]

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.

I agree. Time based quests definitely have their place. Some of the standard quest tropes are actually in pretty dire need of them (whats that you say, your wife was kidnapped last night by raiders? Surely they will hold her at their local base indefinitely without hurting her too badly....)

That having been said, I think portions of the main being timed would be better than the entire game being on a timer unless it is really necessary for the story.

[Gearhead]

I don't like time pressures because I love to wander around and poke my nose into everything I find. That's definitely not at all realistic, but there it is. Any time constraints would have to be done carefully to balance pressure and realism with enjoyability.

[Azriel]

I could sort of see it as a MINOR side quest, but absolutely not for the main quest or important quests. That would just lead to frustration.

[Bad Santa]

As long as players are given the time frame for TB quests before they accept them

There is one thing I hate, but hate upon hate, about quests is never knowing how they end if I can't finish them. I can replay the game, sure, but I already know how it starts, where to get it, who to talk to... Half the fun is gone. And I usually have more than one quest going. If there is a time based quest I want to know two things, how long does it last so I can make sure that I can do something else in the mean time or know weather or not I have to drop everything. Fixed availability windows. When will this quest "expire" so to speak, or if at all. "If I don't get my medicine in three weeks I'll be dead" or "The road is closed in winter".

[cah]

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.

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.