I for one like the style of Mount & Blade. Basically open world, but all quests have some kind of time limit, that is pretty generous though. So if you don't take too many quests at once, you won't have much problems.
The reason why open world gaming sucks.
- Thread starter uchytjes
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Some people here already posted the idea of time based questlines combined with the normal open world gameplay. I like this idea. Otherwise i prefer my free roam games without a timer. Dead Rising 2 was a game i really wanted to like but the concept of failing, restarting and leveling up on a ticking clock was not for me.
Man, those were the days. Every single plague had the capacity to practically erase towns from the map. My second time through I didn't even fight the demons - I just won the game before they even attacked (discovered how to use Mind Duel effectively, totally broke the game).Duck Sandwich said:
Reminds me, I've got Avadon to finish one of these days...
It's already been said more than once that the point is to make you engage more with what is happening and the decision you make. That is the point. It is possible that a game might be designed to do more than one thing for more than one purpose. And I don't really care about what you think of Dead Rising, the timers and events made it entertaining. There are plenty of opportunities and times to get bored of messing around if you want.MiracleOfSound said:
Like others have said open-world games tend to be more on the exploration of the world you're given above anything else, so some arbitrary time limit to look around it just tends to piss a lot of people off.
I was one of the few that actually likes the time limit in the Dead Rising series, but even I'll admit there were/are times where I'd much rather just go round killing zombies without having to worry about some time limit for the next bit of story or a side mission. Which is why I really enjoyed Sandbox Mode in Dead Rising 2: Off The Record.
I was one of the few that actually likes the time limit in the Dead Rising series, but even I'll admit there were/are times where I'd much rather just go round killing zombies without having to worry about some time limit for the next bit of story or a side mission. Which is why I really enjoyed Sandbox Mode in Dead Rising 2: Off The Record.
Why has no one mentioned Balder's Gate II yet? With all the love for Bioware you'd think it'd be on the first page.
Admittedly, this time limit is the main reason I never got very far - I couldn't decide what to do or where to go, so I never left the first town.
I played Fallout sometime after that, so I'd be fine now. But that knowledge that there's so much to do and so little time can be very daunting.
Admittedly, this time limit is the main reason I never got very far - I couldn't decide what to do or where to go, so I never left the first town.
I played Fallout sometime after that, so I'd be fine now. But that knowledge that there's so much to do and so little time can be very daunting.
If that would somehow engage you more in the mission then good for you. I however, find timers to be a pain in the ass in any situation, I don't want to be pressured in a genre that is built around freedom.More Fun To Compute said:
Worth noting tho, that once you get the water chip in Fallout you've got up to day 500 to do what you want. I'm not sure I ever stuck with a character long enough to hit that limit.Andy Shandy said:
You need the sense of urgency for the beginning, but afterwards you've basically got all the time in the world.
Well I wouldn't want anything in any game anywhere that some people thought was a pain in the ass or too challenging. I wouldn't want to be the one who rocked the boat and made people on a forum rant about what an extremist I am.MiracleOfSound said:
That's a strawman argument. No-one is suggesting the games shouldn't be challenging, but that timers add the kind of challenge that people generally don't enjoy.More Fun To Compute said:
You've just tore me up inside, I was just about to post about how I hate time limits in games, forces you to do things when you want to do other things etc. etc. but then I see your post and what was I about to go do? Install Fallout collection and play Fallout 1scorptatious said:
the same reason games dont self-destruct the first time you die in-game: some bits of realism are just far too inconvenient for gameplay. the entire point of an open-world is freedom, and slapping a time limit on the amount of freedom you can have before the mandated story-event makes the game feel even more restrictive than a linear one. it works in dead rising because the purpose of the open-world there isnt freedom, its an obstacle course to make it more tense and time-consuming to get from objective to objective, and even then i think i would much rather do away with the time limit.
Many people claim not to enjoy any sort of challenge. Cheat codes and walkthroughs have always been some of the most popular content in games magazines and web sites. When people say they work in games development to strangers one of the first things they are asked is if they know any cheat codes. You get respected game journalists saying that games should all have an option for god mode like doom because they only want to mess around and experience the story.MiracleOfSound said:
I firmly believe that timers in open games are a bad idea, I'd even go to say that I was turned off a certain RTS because each mission had a timer. I'd get right up to the end and then Fail because I'd ran out of time.. SUCKED!
The problem with timers is that they don't really represent anything in-game. They're just a countdown to some game over event... what if there were other ways to prevent said event? That would open the freedom to explore and solve problems. This could create game play opportunities.
Imagine:
RPG where you're placed in the midst of a civil war, an evil war lord is amassing his forces in an effort to crush the rebellion. If left unchecked, he will totally steamroll you and your merry band of friends.
So how about you can choose to disrupt his supply lines in real time, track and kill his generals, place traps, ambush his soldiers.
This could force the enemy to adopt different tactics to try to achieve their goals - The gameplay being in trying to stop him and figuring out how.
There is a kind-of time limit in this, but it's not a clock. It's simply, the enemy may be able to defeat you and your friends because he was allowed to.
This wouldn't work for games like Skyrim simply because they're Adventure simulators where everything revolves around you being the hero in your own time. It's this freedom which people love in the game.
Although I would like to see a free roaming RPG where there is an AI deploying forces in response to your actions to try to defeat you.
Does a game like this exist?
The problem with timers is that they don't really represent anything in-game. They're just a countdown to some game over event... what if there were other ways to prevent said event? That would open the freedom to explore and solve problems. This could create game play opportunities.
Imagine:
RPG where you're placed in the midst of a civil war, an evil war lord is amassing his forces in an effort to crush the rebellion. If left unchecked, he will totally steamroll you and your merry band of friends.
So how about you can choose to disrupt his supply lines in real time, track and kill his generals, place traps, ambush his soldiers.
This could force the enemy to adopt different tactics to try to achieve their goals - The gameplay being in trying to stop him and figuring out how.
There is a kind-of time limit in this, but it's not a clock. It's simply, the enemy may be able to defeat you and your friends because he was allowed to.
This wouldn't work for games like Skyrim simply because they're Adventure simulators where everything revolves around you being the hero in your own time. It's this freedom which people love in the game.
Although I would like to see a free roaming RPG where there is an AI deploying forces in response to your actions to try to defeat you.
Does a game like this exist?
I didn't say they were. I'm not sure that you have proved false equivalence here. The sort of argument I'm making is that group A might be the people who don't like the challenge of time limits and that group B might be people who think that every game should have a god mode because they don't like any challenge. And that both are part of group C which is people who I shouldn't offend because arguing for challenge that some people don't like in games is offensive. Group D, people posting in this thread, is not relevant in this case.MiracleOfSound said:
the whole point of open world games is that you do anything but the main quest. a good way of doing it was morrowind. you are thrown on an island, free to explore. infact the main quest (casius Cosades) encourages you to go out and "explore and do some outside missions to keep up your cover". there is no urgency. i play open world because i can explore it thouraly and slowly. i like going back to save, drop off loot and hoard items. i could play them for hundreds of hours, took 232 hours to finnish fallout 3 twice, so thats 116 hours per run. i like not being hurried with the main story.
in fact, i HATE missions whether its shooter or RTS where there is a timer. timer is the worst thing that can happen in games. i want to play the game at my own pace.
in fact, i HATE missions whether its shooter or RTS where there is a timer. timer is the worst thing that can happen in games. i want to play the game at my own pace.