The reason why open world gaming sucks.

[uchytjes]

In recent years, games have been turning from a linear, story based campaign towards a more open world approach with the story happening to simply wait around while the protagonist goes and screws around for about a month in-game. Because of this, it can really be detrimental to the urgency that most plots want to give a character. A good example of this would be the Elder Scrolls series, especially Oblivion. We have the protagonist, who out of sheer luck has escaped from jail because his cell has the secret royal escape rout entrance in it and the emperor needs to use it to escape. When he dies, he gives you the royal amulet and instructs you to take it to the leader of the blades. At this point, the entire world opens up and you can do whatever you want and as long as you don't take the amulet to Jaufree, the plot doesn't move on. The oblivion gates never open (except the one in Kvatch) and no one dies unless you are present.

So my question is this: why don't more open world games have some form of time limit? A good example of an open world with a time limit is the dead rising games. You are given 72 hours in-game to do whatever the hell you want. If you want to do the questline, you have to do it at appropriate times and if you are late for even one quest, you fail it all and are left to just do whatever you want for the remaining time.

Now I know that a major part of most open world games are the exploration aspect, and I also Know that without that I probably wouldn't like them as much. What I'm asking is this: why can't there be some form of invisible time limit? An example of this would be you are given a quest to go save a person from being assassinated in another town. You are told that if you don't hurry, you will fail. If you decide to go screw around for a bit, the assassination takes place, but you don't know about it until you arrive at the location. Also, on the subject of urgency, why isn't there more "in 3 month's time so and so will invade. we have that long to prepare" types of quests? it would allow you to do whatever you want and depending on what/how much you do depends of how the final battle plays out.

tl;dr Why don't more open world games have more time limits?

edit: tl;dr#2 Why don't more games have plots that fit open worlds without time limits?

 

[Christopher Fisher]

Why don't they have time limits? Because it would just annoy people. The main reason people like open world games is because you can explore them at your own pace and do what interests you. If you don't like them, don't play them. I don't like incredibly linear, wannabe-Hollywood games that despise player interactivity, so I don't play them. Keep in mind that this is very different from a game like the Walking Dead, Mass Effect, Deus Ex, and other such narrative heavy games, as those games allow the player to shape the game to a certain extent.

 

[scorptatious]

Sounds like you've never played Fallout 1.

Yeah, it's not exactly a modern game, but it fits what you're describing.

You have 150 in game days to find a water chip for your vault. Although I'm pretty sure the game automatically ends if you fail. I don't know, I've never let that happen.

 

[Satan]

I don't really think that's a good way to do it. If I want freedom I don't want to be forced anything. Allthough I prefer my freedom in the form of level style like Deus ex, thief and the like.

 

[skywolfblue]

Why punish people who want to explore? A time limit means you can't stop and admire the scenery, you can't spend time idly chit-chatting it up with NPCs throughout the world.

I hate time limits in games, I'm play to enjoy scene and smell the roses, not to be shuffled through at 100mph.

What I'm asking is this: why can't there be some form of invisible time limit?

That's fine if it's a soft fail, and another NPC or another quest takes its stead. Having a hard "Game Over" would be terrible. (Why would anyone be that cruel?*)
Game: "OH HA GAME OVER"
Gamer: "Wha? Why?"
Game: "Because there's this hidden timer I never told you about ran out"
Gamer: *Tries to re-load last save, but it doesn't work because the game last saved at 29.9hours and the game times out at 30hours*
Game: "Too bad, you'll have to restart the entire game! HAHAHAHA"

*Yes I am aware that there are old school games with that kind of timer. Those games are EVIL.

 

[TrevHead]

I think the timer would be a good addition to open world games, it would stop my urge to explore all the games content and getting bogged down in sidequests.

 

[uchytjes]

Why punish people who want to explore? A time limit means you can't stop and admire the scenery, you can't spend time idly chit-chatting it up with NPCs throughout the world.

I hate time limits in games, I'm play to enjoy scene and smell the roses, not to be shuffled through at 100mph.

What I'm asking is this: why can't there be some form of invisible time limit?

That's fine if it's a soft fail, and another NPC or another quest takes its stead. Having a hard "Game Over" would be terrible. (Why would anyone be that cruel?*)
Game: "OH HA GAME OVER"
Gamer: "Wha? Why?"
Game: "Because there's this hidden timer I never told you about ran out"
Gamer: *Tries to re-load last save, but it doesn't work because the game last saved at 29.9hours and the game times out at 30hours*
Game: "Too bad, you'll have to restart the entire game! HAHAHAHA"

*Yes I am aware that there are old school games with that kind of timer. Those games are EVIL.

yes, you got it. I want a game that changes based on when you do stuff and how you do it. if you don't do it either something bad happens in the story (again the whole "stop the assassin" example) but you can still go on and complete the game, you just have a harder time of it because you didn't follow directions and do it in a timely manner.

 

[StylinBones]

Not all games are moving that way. None of the uber-popular war games are open world.

It's a matter of preference. Some people like to waste hours exploring, collecting items, completing sidequests, etc.

I don't. I like linear to mostly-linear games.

 

[ShinyCharizard]

Because arbitrary time limits are usually annoying and defeat the point of having an open world game.

 

[Rooster Cogburn]

Don't write a story with a ticking clock element then. Problem solved.

Can I have Bethesda's Lead Writer's job, please?

 

[Vault101]

edit: tl;dr#2 Why don't more games have plots that fit open worlds without time limits?

well when you do certain quests in some games the timefram movies forward and theres no going back, though alot of games are set chronologically at a time where there is time to dick around (like falloutNV)

much like Infamous/2

I'd also go against popular opinion and use the elderscroll games as an example of why it can suck....because theres so much to do and no motivation to do it

 

[uchytjes]

edit: tl;dr#2 Why don't more games have plots that fit open worlds without time limits?

well when you do certain quests in some games the timefram movies forward and theres no going back, though alot of games are set chronologically at a time where there is time to dick around (like falloutNV)

much like Infamous/2

I'd also go against popular opinion and use the elderscroll games as an example of why it can suck....because theres so much to do and no motivation to do it

Oh yeah, forgot about that one. That is a really good example of a story where time can pass at whatever time it wants and still make sense.

 

[Joccaren]

Personally I think it should be a compromise between the two.
The assassin and "You have x days to prepare" are good ways of doing things. The former doesn't have a large impact on anything but the story, and the latter is just timed for one event, and gives you time to either prepare or do other stuff before that event starts.
Another couple of ways of doing this is through a dynamic world. Imagine if the civil war for Skyrim started without you. It is at a constant stalemate, but small towns and castles constantly change hands, and you come across skirmishes between the two sides quite often, of whilst you were dicking around you could encounter Alduin reviving dragons BEFORE you do that blades quest. Or in Oblivion, having the gates open up around the world before you continue along that quest.
Another way is having semi-episodic style missions, where you might have a chain of 3-4 missions that are on a time limit of sorts, and require you to take action quickly for the best outcome in them, however after that there's a bit more of a "Go search for this" sort of quest where there is no urgency, and you're free to go out and explore the world as much as you want. Once you complete it, the plot might pick up the pace a bit, and give you another few missions that urgently need completing, and after that there's another lull in the urgency to allow you to do other things. It allows some nice changes of pace, giving urgency to some missions, and having others be more relaxed.

 

[Treeinthewoods]

I can totally understand how some people would enjoy a greater sense of urgency in their games, personally though it really isn't what I love. Fallout 3, NV, the Elder Scrolls series, GTA 3-4, Red Dead Redemption... these are some of my absolute favorite games ever simply because they don't do that. I love being free to approach a game world at my own pace and do whatever I feel like doing at any time. Being required to complete a mission in a certain time frame would limit my freedom and reduce my enjoyment a good deal. I do enjoy the stories when I feel like it but the real enjoyment I get is the freedom to explore, do side quests and basically just do whatever I want at any given time.

Getting railroaded along irks me, if I want that I will get a different type of game instead of a sandbox. It goes against everything that draws me to the genre when developers start trying to punish me for not playing a certain way or in a certain time frame. The completionist in me is all the motivation I need to get things done.

 

[SonicWaffle]

tl;dr Why don't more open world games have more time limits?

Because in the majority of these games, the player is the driving force behind the plot. Take Skyrim - the civil war happens largely because your actions tip the balance, giving one side the advantage they require to actually make a concerted assault and win victory. The player's influence and decisions are what shapes the future of the world, making the player character the most important character, which is kinda the point of these games. In Mass Effect we are playing as the hero, the pivotal character in the universe, and Shepard is what keeps the plot moving forward through his choices and actions. The player has to be proactive rather than simply reactive.

We are the agents of change. If the world kept moving forward without us, we'd be sidelined to minor character status, forever playing catch-up with the world rather than being to driving influence. That might be fun in a linear game, playing the role of the sidekick, because in a linear game you're playing through someone else's story. In an open-world sandbox, you're writing your own story.

edit: tl;dr#2 Why don't more games have plots that fit open worlds without time limits?

See above.

All navel-gazing aside, I hate timed missions in any game, because I hate feeling as if I'm being rushed. In a sandbox game like Fallout where my main source of pleasure is leisurely exploration and discovery, I'd stop playing if missions started popping up and telling me I failed because I didn't go somewhere fast enough. When you have a game world which is stuffed to the gills with distractions (you can't even walk from one location to another in a Bethesda game without encountering two or three new locations or events that you want to explore or experience) then it's not very sensible to force players to ignore them because they're hurrying to get somewhere.

 

[MiracleOfSound]

tl;dr Why don't more open world games have more time limits?

Because it's an utterly terrible idea. People who play open-world games usually do so specifically because of the more relaxed, 'take your time and do what you want, when you want' feel.

Suspension of disbelief is all that is required here. Screw realism and screw time limits.

 

[More Fun To Compute]

They should have time limits but people are pussies and complain. Things like time limits greatly enhance the feeling of engagement with worlds like this. The problem is that many people don't want to engage with the game and just want to fart around and have a laugh and it would take real effort to design for both. So we have cut scenes and quick time events to force people with low attention spans to engage. I blame the use of marijuana for this.

 

[Jfswift]

I've only seen one game that punished you for screwing around when you should be on a mission and that was Deus Ex: Human Revolution. If you take too long in the office building at the beginning the hostages will die. I had no idea the game exhibited a mechanic like that. It's a first for me, but realistic and I kind of liked it.

 

[Elementary - Dear Watson]

The same can be said with linear games too...

I am a meticulous explorer in games, and will quite often OCD-esque look in EVERY corner in EVERY room before I move on... I will even do this in the 'action sequences' unless I am being pushed by some sort of objective, which isn't often... so in that case it screws with the realism too...

but you know what? Screw it... the realism is failing because I am messing it up, but it's my game, and that is how I want to play it, so I don't care!

So if you want to do the story in an open world game, go for it... but if you want to hang around, that's cool too! I would be partial to a few sarcy remarks when you turn up a week late, but I don't want to be punished for my short attention span and OCD exploration!!

 

[Trippy Turtle]

It can feel as urgent as you want it too. I know for a fact that I would never have gotten half the enjoyment I did out of Oblivion if I had figured out how to the story fast. I ended up exploring the shivering isles for around 100 hours before even taking the amulet to the guy. After I beat the main plot it just sort of got boring.