Editorial Challenge vs Frustration: Bloggin' on Time Limits

[Clockwork Knight]

The problem with partial failure for not meeting time limits is that no one wants to play for a consolation prize and have be reminded of their failure for the rest of their experience, and people would just reload. And if you make the failure inconspicuous and it is only learned at the end, it is frustrating as well.

No, a hard time limit signifying direct failure is the way to go. Nothing produces more tension and sense of total impending doom. In your first Fallout playtrohugh, if you don't get close to a solution soon for the water chip you get tremendously involved and desperate.

But if people hate partial failure so much they would rather reload, doesn't that mean it is the more effective method of inspiring a sense of urgence?

 

[Humanity has risen!]

Then it is just an annoyance and something frustrating.

 

[hiver]

As an explorer normally I hate time limits. But I've always thought Fallout and Star Control 2 were two games that did them well. The consequences were dire, you were warned along the way and it made every action seem more important because you couldn't just magic the threat away, you had to prioritize. In FO it was refreshing because, just like not being the Chosen One, the time limit gave a sense of not being the center of the universe. Things would happen with or without you.
.

Thus the "threat" was real even for you the player.

 

[DraQ]

The biggest problem with TIME LIMIT in Fallout was that it meant GAME OVER.
If you could play on, in the world changed by the consequences of your actions then it would be a totally different conundrum to ponder.
The Vault was lost so... what? You still had the master and mutants to take care of, other communities to influence... amirite?

(...)

Applied where logic and common sense would expect them but without GAME OVER consequence, if that is not absolutely demanded by logic and common sense.... will work just fine and make the game better.

Completely agreed and .

I would not agree that doing the whole game time limits through mechanics is the right option.
In fact, it is the worst.

First - it imposes time limits where, reasonably, there should not be any.
Second - It creates content of lesser quality and believability.

Ahem... examples or GTFO.

I think brief time limits for specific challenges are the way to go, and there should never be an absolute failure state attached. An easy example is a mini-game inside a mini-game collection like Mario Party - the timer creates tension, yes, but even if you fail, there's plenty more chances to make it up because that challenge was one of many you'll be taking on. When you do eventually lose the game, it feels fair because your failure is a result of repeat losses, not one.

In an RPG context, the same approach works fine - give the player a limited time to accomplish an objective, perhaps with negative ramifications for failure, but allow the game to continue.

An excellent RPG example would be Daggerfall - pretty much every quest apart from most of the MQ has time limit attached and can be failed. However, the game is built around the assumption that you will fail quests a lot.

Fallout would have actually worked with this; its open-world nature meant that the player could still win without ever saving Vault 13, so why not simply give the player a different ending if the Water Chip is never recovered? There's a story consequence (your friends all die), and a gameplay consequence (less direction/info on taking out the Master), and none of it would feel especially unfair either.

Perhaps saving Vault 13 could have been a more multi-part objective with a mix of different limitations, hard and soft. Multiple outcomes with a sort of granularity in success would have also been just as fair. For example, perhaps you side with the rebels and convince them to open up to the Wasteland, saving the Vault but ruining its safety and lifestyle. The details of course require tweaking to make everything interact and operate smoothly (which endings trump which?) but you get the idea.

As Chris brought up, System Shock 2 had time limits attached to inventory items (upgrades), and I think this is also a much more fair sort of limit to include in a game. While charging stations were fairly plentiful (at least one per deck of the ship) it still provided benefits while also encouraging the player to make ideal use of time. It's a timer, yes, but it's disguised both in gameplay and narrative. In that sense, a game like Fallout also has a timer - ammunition - but you can also use others like food supplies to accomplish the same. Instead of an annoyance, it becomes a game mechanic for the player to consider.

The problem with such time limits is that they aren't applicable to a lot of things.

Stuff like supply mechanics is an excellent thing but it cannot be used to provide *external* pressure.

This issue is similar to the issue of enemy encounter design, or enemy leveling.
If you do it through overarching mechanics - like level scaling - you end up with shit.
If you do it by hand... which is harder - and it god damn makes sense that a better option is harder - then you get great content.

Have to disagree. Level scaling can work in certain situations - it all boils down to execution. For example, you could have a handful of preset encounter types that are hand-built, but spawned based on player level. There are lazy and cheap ways to do it, yes, but there are also effective ways to do it, just like any other part of a game.

Agreed. LS is mostly used in a shitty manner, but can be legitimate sometimes, for example if you send enemies (thugs, assassins, mercenaries) specifically after the player, it makes sense to go for whatever seems sufficient rather than overpaying an overkill.

Additionally, level scaling can be used as a sort of soft time limit, except tied to player's power increasing with time rather than the time itself. It's more flexible provided that you can justify scaling in respect to time in-universe. For example it mostly worked in Morrowind, with wildlife being presumably driven out by progressing blight, with increasing numbers of diseased and plagued animals attacking the player. How could it be realized better? By scaling to the number of skill increases AND items traded rather than directly to the level. Also by removing any and all loot scaling and enemy scaling not explainable by in universe factors (for example daedra and undead tomb guardians), but those were relatively inconspicuous.

The problem with partial failure for not meeting time limits is that no one wants to play for a consolation prize and have be reminded of their failure for the rest of their experience, and people would just reload.

That's also the problem with total failure...

And if you make the failure inconspicuous and it is only learned at the end

...then you get totally shafted if the game doesn't allow for partial failure and we're talking of long term stuff, such as timer for the main quest.

Partial failure may also tempt you to reload, but at least it also gives you an option to continue, which, if the failure is a cumulative result of >20h of playing, is far better than telling the player to start over.

No, a hard time limit signifying direct failure is the way to go. Nothing produces more tension and sense of total impending doom.

Sense of impending doom is best facilitated using some sort of feedback telling player how badly or well he's progressing.
If you need your hard failure, you can always accomplish it by sticking soft failure in front of it, with increasingly dire consequences of your inaction piling up and urging you to hurry the fuck up before you get finally hit by a game over screen.

Then it is just an annoyance and something frustrating.

More frustrating than having to start over?

 

[hiver]

DraQ


I would love nothing better than to write a few pages of exact examples and other assorted ingenious and mindboggling ...words.
But as i have been seriously working my manly job for some time now i couldnt care less about any of it, or anything else.
Except one, the rarest of things on teh codex.

but,

Lets just say that... theoretically... there could be a game with overarching time limiting mechanics. Just like there could be a perfect rpg or a perfect game.
However, the execution is always less than stellar as such wild ideas and dreams - and i was talking from that realistic point of view and from inside the game point of view.

Now, in reality, almost everything we do has some kind of time limit so it can be argued that everyfucking little thing in a game should succumb to that rule but, games are made to play good instead of represent reality completely.
I know you know this but i just wanted to get it out of the possible way.

This is an old issue of game design:
- Do it in a seemingly harder way, by designing such events or quests or features or enemy encounters and whatnot - by hand, so to speak.
- Or trying to "make it easier" by designing a whole overarching game-global mechanics system. - which goes something like this : Lets make dialogue procedurally generated hey? lets make enemy encounters procedurally generated eh?
Lets just fucking make the fucking game that fucking writes fucking itself EH?


/


While some things really need to be built in this way, I dont see why time limited quests should be.
Especially since that would warp the whole game design from top to bottom. Everything would need to be adjusted to that.
End if you want to have every and each one of those quests spreading into different C&C then... whoa boy...


/


Really, i think most of us would be quite satisfied with a few (or more) well placed and well thought out time limited quests and their consequences.

 

[hiver]

DraQ


I would love nothing better than to write a few pages of exact examples and other assorted ingenious and mindboggling ...words.
But as i have been seriously working my manly job for some time now i couldnt care less about any of it, or anything else.
Except one, the rarest of things on teh codex.

but,

Lets just say that... theoretically... there could be a game with overarching time limiting mechanics. Just like there could be a perfect rpg or a perfect game.
However, the execution is always less than stellar as such wild ideas and dreams - and i was talking from that realistic point of view and from inside the game point of view.

Now, in reality, almost everything we do has some kind of time limit so it can be argued that everyfucking little thing in a game should succumb to that rule but, games are made to play good instead of represent reality completely.
I know you know this but i just wanted to get it out of the possible way.

This is an old issue of game design:
- Do it in a seemingly harder way, by designing such events or quests or features or enemy encounters and whatnot - by hand, so to speak.
- Or trying to "make it easier" by designing a whole overarching game-global mechanics system. - which goes something like this : Lets make dialogue procedurally generated hey? lets make enemy encounters procedurally generated eh?
Lets just fucking make the fucking game that fucking writes fucking itself EH?


/


While some things really need to be built in this way, I dont see why time limited quests should be.
Especially since that would warp the whole game design from top to bottom. Everything would need to be adjusted to that.
End if you want to have every and each one of those quests spreading into different C&C then... whoa boy...


/


Really, i think most of us would be quite satisfied with a few (or more) well placed and well thought out time limited quests and their consequences.

 

[Haraldur]

One thing that greatly improved Valkyria Chronicles was NOT the overall time limit per mission of 20 turns, but the rewards for completing a mission quickly in the form of extra XP and money (or, alternatively, penalties for slowness through not getting them). Without the incentive to be speedy the enemy AI would have been helpless before a cautious player, but with it the player must think carefully to get an optimal solution, increasing challenge.

 

[DraQ]

One thing that greatly improved Valkyria Chronicles was NOT the overall time limit per mission of 20 turns, but the rewards for completing a mission quickly in the form of extra XP and money (or, alternatively, penalties for slowness through not getting them). Without the incentive to be speedy the enemy AI would have been helpless before a cautious player, but with it the player must think carefully to get an optimal solution, increasing challenge.

That's actually a good idea, but it would be best implemented using mechanical means hiver so despises.

For example dicking around in a dungeon or other hostile area would give its inhabitants time to form defenses, set up traps and spread alert, maybe even move McGuffins someplace else.

 

[hiver]

No i dont despise it. Not completely. It has its place.
In the "lower" levels of game design.

And even then it just raises its own problems and questions.
Is there any actual reason why quests in Valkyria give more rewards if done quickly. is there any reason to it all or is that just an overall general rule not connected to any particular story and motivations of any quest?

What those defenses would be? Where would they be placed exactly? What kinds of traps, where? Completely randomly? On the paths we went through or wont go through at all?
Where does that mcguffin go actually? Just some random any place?

It all ends up requiring additional work and care by designers themselves.



But...

It seems you guys might be getting it your way

http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2012/06/04/the-ai-that-designs-its-own-games/

The project certainly isn’t complete yet – “obviously we’re a long way from cultural relevance,” says Michael – but it’s already producing some fascinating games and delivering some wonderful and bizarre surprises.
Firstly, Angelina’s opinions of people aren’t always – shall we say – the most refined. “For instance,” says Michael, “the other day, I noticed that she’d made a game about the Syrian conflict, and Angelina said that her opinion of Bashar al-Assad had changed, and that she liked Bashar al-Assad. I have no idea what made her have that opinion.”


/


And then there was the game that Michael is reluctant to talk about, and certainly to showcase publicly: Angelina named it Sex, Lies and Rape.

 

[hiver]

No i dont despise it. Not completely. It has its place.
In the "lower" levels of game design.

And even then it just raises its own problems and questions.
Is there any actual reason why quests in Valkyria give more rewards if done quickly. is there any reason to it all or is that just an overall general rule not connected to any particular story and motivations of any quest?

What those defenses would be? Where would they be placed exactly? What kinds of traps, where? Completely randomly? On the paths we went through or wont go through at all?
Where does that mcguffin go actually? Just some random any place?

It all ends up requiring additional work and care by designers themselves.



But...

It seems you guys might be getting it your way

http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2012/06/04/the-ai-that-designs-its-own-games/

The project certainly isn’t complete yet – “obviously we’re a long way from cultural relevance,” says Michael – but it’s already producing some fascinating games and delivering some wonderful and bizarre surprises.
Firstly, Angelina’s opinions of people aren’t always – shall we say – the most refined. “For instance,” says Michael, “the other day, I noticed that she’d made a game about the Syrian conflict, and Angelina said that her opinion of Bashar al-Assad had changed, and that she liked Bashar al-Assad. I have no idea what made her have that opinion.”


/


And then there was the game that Michael is reluctant to talk about, and certainly to showcase publicly: Angelina named it Sex, Lies and Rape.

 

[DragoFireheart]

RPG
Game Over Time Limit

Choose one.

I have never played any video game where I liked the time limit. One of the following things always happens:

- The time limit is an artificial way of making the game more difficult.(Super Mario games. You have to go "fast" enough to complete the level)
- The time limit is rendered pointless by another mechanic (x: Majora's Mask, you can reset time, making the game more of a chore rather)
- Discourages exploration (Fallout 1. I never really bothered exploring until after the water chip)
- Almost always forces the game into a linear path.
- Almost always you get too much time.
- The result of the time limit is always a boring "game over".

That's probably the largest reason I hate time limits in games. It's never "oh, this super boss just found you, HAUL ASS" or "the security has improved!" or "the Mutants took the vault, you need to fight a hard as fuck battle in addition to the Master and the Military base".

No, it's always just "Game Over, us game developers are too lazy to implement something dynamic". The only game with a rewarding time limit were the Metroid games. Not the greatest, but you are rewarded for completing the game faster by getting to see Samus rack. Time limits should:

- Complete the game/event within X time? You get X result.
- DON'T use Game Over as a result, it's always terrible.
- Failure to complete an event in X amount of time means a lesser reward or you have to fight a tough fight.
- Failing or succeeding some time limits opens or closes other events.

EDIT:

How about more pseudo time limits? For exmaple: Resident Evil 3 had Nemesis. You didn't have a strict time limit per say, but if you dilly dally too long, a giant monster is going to pwn you.

Why couldn't it be in Fallout 1 "if you take too long to stop the Mutants, they will start to hunt you down after they take over Vault 13"?

Honestly, the only time you should get the Game Over screen is when your character is riddled with hundreds of dozens of bullets and turned into a bloody pulp or a Deathclaw rips your head off.

 

[Malpercio]

I hate, hate, hate fucking hate Time Limits.

One of the reason (not TEH reason, but still) i couldn't stomach the first Fallout. I can bear with annoying shit like, dunno, random encounters in a game, but time limit, ugh.

 

[Jaesun]

I hate, hate, hate fucking hate Time Limits.

One of the reason (not TEH reason, but still) i couldn't stomach the first Fallout. I can bear with annoying shit like, dunno, random encounters in a game, but time limit, ugh.

Yes. Fallout's (patched) time limit was hard. You can even extend it further if you want. OMG! SO HARD!

 

[Malpercio]

I didn't say it was hard.

 

[Average Manatee]

Time limits are an excellent gameplay mechanic when implemented properly, peasant.

It's also the most natural and mechanically sound way to integrate C&C into the gameplay, therefore a natural fit for RPGs.

 

[DraQ]

I have never played any video game where I liked the time limit.

How about Daggerfall?

Or how about Oblivion as an example of a game that should have time limits? Granted, it would still suck horribly, but at least you wouldn't be able to ignore demonic invasion in progress or Septims' heir trapped in a burning city indefinitely.

 

[DraQ]

What those defenses would be? Where would they be placed exactly? What kinds of traps, where? Completely randomly? On the paths we went through or wont go through at all?
Where does that mcguffin go actually? Just some random any place?

Answers are:
-whatever would be applicable and pain in the ass
-wherever applicable and pain in the ass
-whatever would be applicable and pain in the ass
-wherever applicable and pain in the ass
-wherever applicable and pain in the ass
-wherever applicable and pain in the ass
-wherever applicable and pain in the ass
Respectively.

Detailed implementation should depend on in-game circumstances and universe.

It all ends up requiring additional work and care by designers themselves.

Pretty much *everything* you do in development amounts to extra works that allows you to avoid work later on or add more flexibility.

Something as basic as fucking engine, while admittedly a lot of work, is only there to avoid having to store all possible frames displayed and code tree of conditional expressions connecting them - approach which gets prohibitive in all but simplest and most linear cases.

If you want your game to amount to something more than glorified CYOA with pretty graphics, then you can't avoid putting in seemingly spurious shit like that, because it's this spurious shit that allows the unexpected, but mechanically possible to happen in games.
It's also this spurious shit that allows you to avoid scripting a lot of stuff explicitly and generally makes the gameworld more alive.

 

[hiver]

But those answers only produce more questions.

Note that i said i like that kind of implementation. I could go with that, on that level of the game.
Im just being realistic about it.

Detailed implementation should depend on in-game circumstances and universe.

in-fucking-deed.

Lets take obliblionon as an example and a dead rotting stinky corpse full of crap and bacteria and other nauseating stuff - ready for vivisection and leaking all over our nice stainless steel table (for a long time now).

No one could argue that the game should not have time limits due to the very overarching story of it.
Should it be done in one big swoop or would the game actually benefit more from a more careful approach where the player could do it in a modular manner - under a condition that it makes god damn sense?

Like, say, if it was more of a honeycomb design then one big invasion and thats it. If you could reach a point in the main plot where you would achieve something that would slow down the invasion so you would get some free time that wouldnt seem mindbogglingly stupid or if the full invasion was not happening at all at the beginning but was something that would begin later on, while at the beginning only some individual gates would open?

Thats what i would want to see much more than all or nothing approach.


p.s.
We werent talking about god damn engines and basics of bloody game graphics and whatnot but i do see your mothefucking point even if its not directly applicable to this specific fucking issue.
- So nice freely talking to another slav

 

[RK47]

So, make the time limits optional?
Hence the gamers who complain it ruins their game won't get to see multiple outcomes of delayed success / failure won't get to see a varied game where it's all streamlined to just one binary result?

 

[DragoFireheart]

I have never played any video game where I liked the time limit.

How about Daggerfall?

What about Daggerfall? Don't be a moron for the first hour of the game, do the first part of the main quest...

Oh, the side quests with time limits? I guess those are... alright. It wouldn't be so bad if you could explore without having to do quests to find more locations beyond graveyards.

 

[hiver]

RK47

Such overarching mechanics cannot be "optional".
There is no easy way out. Either you design that system in a good way, which takes effort and care and thinking about how and where you do it - or you dont.

 

[Alex_Steel]

I don't mind time limits at all. If Fallout didn't 'Game Over' after the time was over, it would be even more interesting. Maybe some other vault dweller came out to do your job but you are considered a failure. Maybe the vault was destroyed and the survivors consider you a traitor, attacking you on sight.

Time limits are cool but it would be better if they are not game enders. The dire consequences must come in game. And for those that cannot live with failure...well, tough luck.
First 1 minute:

 

[Awor Szurkrarz]

I never managed to miss the time limit in Fallout.

 

[DraQ]

But those answers only produce more questions.

Note that i said i like that kind of implementation. I could go with that, on that level of the game.
Im just being realistic about it.

It shouldn't be that hard to set up alarm triggers and scripting enemies to retreat, possibly while picking specified stuff or setting specific traps at specific path-grid nodes. They could either hole up or try to bypass you while fleeing the dungeon altogether and advancing towards next most suitable one in the gameworld.

Games like Stalker or Skyrim have long range NPC movement, and then you have stuff like Smart Kobold roguelike (haven't played myself) which has your typical nuissance mob (kobolds) behaving in intelligent manner.

Lets take obliblionon as an example and a dead rotting stinky corpse full of crap and bacteria and other nauseating stuff - ready for vivisection and leaking all over our nice stainless steel table (for a long time now).

No one could argue that the game should not have time limits due to the very overarching story of it.
Should it be done in one big swoop or would the game actually benefit more from a more careful approach where the player could do it in a modular manner - under a condition that it makes god damn sense?

Like, say, if it was more of a honeycomb design then one big invasion and thats it. If you could reach a point in the main plot where you would achieve something that would slow down the invasion so you would get some free time that wouldnt seem mindbogglingly stupid or if the full invasion was not happening at all at the beginning but was something that would begin later on, while at the beginning only some individual gates would open?

Thats what i would want to see much more than all or nothing approach.

Even if it was just mechanically enforced soft limit (settlements get damaged/destroyed, population killed off, countryside ravaged as invasion progresses until you're actually left alone in world looking like D2 hell rip off planes of oblivion, surrounded by hordes of bloodthirsty daedra) it would still not be a hard limit, and of course any sensible limiters or breakpoints you can propose would be legit as well, same with spending more time tracking (still underground and undercover) cultists, less closing fucking gates.

- So nice freely talking to another slav

What about Daggerfall? Don't be a moron for the first hour of the game, do the first part of the main quest...

Oh, the side quests with time limits? I guess those are... alright. It wouldn't be so bad if you could explore without having to do quests to find more locations beyond graveyards.

There are also maps.

 

[Johannes]

I hate, hate, hate fucking hate Time Limits.

One of the reason (not TEH reason, but still) i couldn't stomach the first Fallout. I can bear with annoying shit like, dunno, random encounters in a game, but time limit, ugh.

Life does not stop and start at your convenience, you miserable piece of shit


Neither should game worlds.