Support NeoGAF

[zkylon]

I think making players engage in choices that seal off content is fine and desirable. Like, it's fine if by siding with one friend, you piss off another. Or if by following one course of action, you make yourself unable to pick another. Or by playing one character, you get special content unavailable to others. The Witcher 2 is a good example.

That's different than sealing off options because you don't have enough time. It adds unnecessary stress and punishes experimentation and exploration. It makes further playthroughs necessary to experience everything, but in an artificial, padded way that means repeating most of the game and probably using a FAQ.

Don't get me wrong, I like Persona 4 so far, and I loved Devil Survivor, but the event-based time limits in these games hurt more than they helped. The in-game time limits in Fallout were even worse.

the water chip failing in fallout is thematically important (in that vaults are by definition set to fail), you're sent to save your dying vault, if you don't find a replacement in time, they die, so it sets you on a quest with actual consequences. you could even send a caravan with water to give yourself more time, and it wasn't much of a ticking timer thing or in your head at all times. so not that big of a pressure, but enough for you to feel like what you do matters.

I think fallout is a perfect example of time done right, because it helps giving meaning to your quest. goofying around indefinitely is an accepted thing but it's pretty silly.

fallout 2 and the modoc x ghost farm quest was a pretty awesome and tense moment in which you had to stop an impending war and had very little time to make mistakes. it turned it into one of my favorite quests in the series, because it felt epic and satisfying. I felt like I adverted an actual crisis.

so yeah, I want both, gaming ocd is bad because getting everything right is not part of the game. good rpg design should reward you with interesting outcomes even for failing quests or conversations. a perfect paragon 100% character is boring imo

Couldn't agree more with Chairman Yang. Time limits are antithetical to getting lost in a world, both in that they feel artificially "gamey" almost without exception, and that they press the player forward even if they want to remain where they are.

Few people liked the water chip limit in Fallout regardless of the amount of time it actually gave you (which I agree was quite a bit), because many people want to explore RPG worlds at their leisure and not feel like they are being rushed to any extent. I'm not surprised they effectively patched it out (by making the time limit something like 12 years, rendering it totally trivial). I think RPGs and urgent time constraints of any sort are always a poor mixture.

to me people have become mistrained into thinking that doing everything and succeding at every quest and event is the right way to play an rpg. we load back an older save if we don't like a decision's outcome, we suck up to every character to max up all our relationships/stats, etc.

I've been guilty of this and I actively try to root it out even if it pains me :/

also if time is thematically relevant to a game then there should be a time constraint. playing a whole rpg under an extreme ticking clock is no fun, I agree, but fallout was more than generous with its time, as is persona 3/4. also it could be limited to certain quests, be extendable ala fallout 1, etc.

 

[Basileus777]

Design that encourages use of FAQs and guides does more to kill immersion than anything else. I don't think time limits fit this sort of game, but if they exist, I'd rather it be something like MOTB than event limits.

 

[Sentenza]

http://criticalpathproject.com/?v=66746207

 

[zkylon]

http://criticalpathproject.com/?v=66746207

I'm glad mca understands

 

[Chairman Yang]

MCA does not fill me with confidence there. He talks about a sense of urgency in a table top game of D&D, which is utterly unlike a video game considering its variable flow of time, lack of exploration, and inability to reload. He then cites System Shock 2 as an example of urgency done well with time-limited power boosts and equipment degradation. Except that game is a survival horror-focused first-person shooter, not an exploration-focused RPG.

I'm not convinced there's any balance to be found between fostering a sense of urgency and fostering a sense of being able to take one's time and explore in detail. The feelings directly contradict each other.

 

[Chairman Yang]

the water chip failing in fallout is thematically important (in that vaults are by definition set to fail), you're sent to save your dying vault, if you don't find a replacement in time, they die, so it sets you on a quest with actual consequences. you could even send a caravan with water to give yourself more time, and it wasn't much of a ticking timer thing or in your head at all times. so not that big of a pressure, but enough for you to feel like what you do matters.

I think fallout is a perfect example of time done right, because it helps giving meaning to your quest. goofying around indefinitely is an accepted thing but it's pretty silly.

fallout 2 and the modoc x ghost farm quest was a pretty awesome and tense moment in which you had to stop an impending war and had very little time to make mistakes. it turned it into one of my favorite quests in the series, because it felt epic and satisfying. I felt like I adverted an actual crisis.

I agree that the Fallout time limits were thematic. But is that really enough? MoTB's spirit-eating was absolutely fundamental to the theme and plot of the game, but it was widely disliked regardless.

And it's clear that plenty of RPGs have set fake time limits (with no in-game urgency) that still feel completely meaningful. The original Torment, for example, or Baldur's Gate 2.

so yeah, I want both, gaming ocd is bad because getting everything right is not part of the game. good rpg design should reward you with interesting outcomes even for failing quests or conversations. a perfect paragon 100% character is boring imo

Sure, I agree. But there are better ways to suppress gaming OCD than pushing the player to ignore content because there's not enough time. Mutually exclusive choices strike me as the best way.

 

[Brother None]

Do note we're not talking about one overall time limit for the game. There won't be countdown timers to "AoE catches up to you, now you're dead" failstates. Rather, we'll utilize a set of pressure mechanics. What those will be exactly I can't really say yet, but think in the direction of quests becoming harder or specific NPCs or goals becoming more difficult to reach, not so much in terms of failstates or content being locked off completely. The goal is not to punish the player, the goal is to have a real pressure in the game that is not just fake and narrative but is actually there.

For individual quests there will be time limits if logic dictates. Like, if there's a burning building and someone runs up to you and goes "please save my only child!", you don't get to dick around for a day of ingame time and return to it. But that's only if it really is dictated by the narrative of the quest, and it'll never be a real-world timer countdown, just in-game time.

 

[zkylon]

I agree that the Fallout time limits were thematic. But is that really enough? MoTB's spirit-eating was absolutely fundamental to the theme and plot of the game, but it was widely disliked regardless.

And it's clear that plenty of RPGs have set fake time limits (with no in-game urgency) that still feel completely meaningful. The original Torment, for example, or Baldur's Gate 2.

not really, I mean, in new vegas you can feel the incoming war between the legion and the ncr but there's no sense of urgency, it's just something far away in the horizon that feels closer as you progress through the campaign. same thing they did in da with the blight. (haven't played planescape or bg2 in a long time so can't remember those examples)

it's not bad, but it's not what you always need. sometimes the game needs to put pressure in the form of a time limit and that's great, variety is great and we shouldn't so set in our ways that a rpg must always allow you to do things at your own pace just because.

I wouldn't make a 100 hour rpg with a constant timer ticking down because that'd be pretty stressing but something like fallout 1 (which actaully ends at a point of the story and then you can take how long you want) or a quest like modoc x ghost farm in fo2 are great for me.

Sure, I agree. But there are better ways to suppress gaming OCD than pushing the player to ignore content because there's not enough time. Mutually exclusive choices strike me as the best way.

I'm not saying it's the only way, blocking off paths because of decisions (alpha protocol) is also amazing, but it's one good way to force failure which I think is a crucial part of any game (and a part we usually skip in rpgs).

say, in alpha protocol, conversations have a time limit. it makes sense because you're a super spy in super cool missions or whatever. basically because of the time limit you can't take your time to make the most educated choice, just the one that feels right. the game feeds you information in the form of intel and makes the options very easy to read. basically they give you tools so that your choice is not random, and you can act well under pressure. the game autosaves so you can't cheat and reload if you didn't like the outcome, and you have to live with your decisions, for better or worse.

so in the end because of the nature of the game, you're gonna screw up and something you didn't want is gonna happen.

I like that, that feels like the way rpgs should normally flow, failures and successes and letting go from the ocd. there are other ways than time limits, but I dunno about better, time limits are the most effective imo.

 

[Eusis]

For individual quests there will be time limits if logic dictates. Like, if there's a burning building and someone runs up to you and goes "please save my only child!", you don't get to dick around for a day of ingame time and return to it. But that's only if it really is dictated by the narrative of the quest, and it'll never be a real-world timer countdown, just in-game time.

That sounds like the kind of thing you'd want to do ASAP "just in case."

Well, as long as they aren't too tight I don't think I'll sweat it, at worst I'll use the guide (I think I'm in the tier for that) or there'll be a patch/mod addressing it.

 

[SquiddyCracker]

Do note we're not talking about one overall time limit for the game. There won't be countdown timers to "AoE catches up to you, now you're dead" failstates. Rather, we'll utilize a set of pressure mechanics. What those will be exactly I can't really say yet, but think in the direction of quests becoming harder or specific NPCs or goals becoming more difficult to reach, not so much in terms of failstates or content being locked off completely. The goal is not to punish the player, the goal is to have a real pressure in the game that is not just fake and narrative but is actually there.

For individual quests there will be time limits if logic dictates. Like, if there's a burning building and someone runs up to you and goes "please save my only child!", you don't get to dick around for a day of ingame time and return to it. But that's only if it really is dictated by the narrative of the quest, and it'll never be a real-world timer countdown, just in-game time.

This I don't really mind.
With events that should be time-sensitive (like the above example), it just breaks immersion if you can just run around without worry.

For that matter, just in general having a "realistic" progression of time (to a limit, it's still a game, and there's nothing wrong with that) in general is welcome. Like if you see a house or district on fire, it should not remain on-fire after some time has passed - it should burn down (whether you use in-game real-time or count time based on map-switches).

 

[Gattsu25]

Shame that the corebook preorder is only through paypal. Fuck paypal.

 

[Zeliard]

It sounds like a form of "priority quests," which we've seen in some other games, with certain quests being time-sensitive until they eventually disappear or are modified in some negative fashion. All it really tends to do in practical terms is make the player go after that quest first instead of something they'd prefer to do.

I think a lack of urgency in quest-solving is almost an inevitable consequence of more open games. From open RPGs to shooters, you are frequently assigned various tasks which are deemed critical, but you're still free to roam the world for as long as you want before doing them. The problem is when something is done to alleviate this - i.e. adding time constraints - the player can feel shackled and forced down a path, which butts up against the notion of freedom in these sorts of games. It's a problem with no perfect solution, but with the choice between the two, I'll take the first style every time and create urgency for the situation in my own mind. I can suspend my disbelief effectively enough for that sort of thing.

I'll take a wait-and-see approach, but the concept doesn't fill me with promise. Can't say it's something I ever thought Torment needed at all.

 

[Zukuu]

Just saw this thread bumped...


Omg, this is the first real bummer... I HATE TIME QUESTS, TIME SENSITIVE, UNDER PRESSURE, TIME LIMITS and what not.
I don't want to feel rushed while I want to idle around, side quest, talk, read, explore etc

Almost all of the beauty of a C-RPG goes sour, once you HAVE to do something. It really adds nothing but making it more tedious and more unenjoyable to play.


Please don't. =/

 

[Naito]

Well, I don't mind the urgency if done properly and contextually.
I'm one of those that tend to try to complete all the sidequests and explore as much as possibile
but to me it feels out of the character to 100% everything, especially if in one take, when you should
be on a task of some sort and shouldn't be dicking around. Have to say it also depends on the quality
of the sidequests.

Some games force you down a path with the massive hint "if you have to do anything, go do it now!
From here on we'll blablabla"; not the most elegant way but it certainly makes you aware.
I'd like something more natural.

 

[trab pu kcip]

Do note we're not talking about one overall time limit for the game. There won't be countdown timers to "AoE catches up to you, now you're dead" failstates. Rather, we'll utilize a set of pressure mechanics. What those will be exactly I can't really say yet, but think in the direction of quests becoming harder or specific NPCs or goals becoming more difficult to reach, not so much in terms of failstates or content being locked off completely. The goal is not to punish the player, the goal is to have a real pressure in the game that is not just fake and narrative but is actually there.

For individual quests there will be time limits if logic dictates. Like, if there's a burning building and someone runs up to you and goes "please save my only child!", you don't get to dick around for a day of ingame time and return to it. But that's only if it really is dictated by the narrative of the quest, and it'll never be a real-world timer countdown, just in-game time.

hm kinda sounds like it though. I mean it's hard to create a sense of urgency without actual negative consequences or "punishments". even if it's "only" something like a special npc we might miss out on (correct me if I'm wrong) I'd feel like it's a shame that there's content I couldn't experience in its full potential because of some time limit.
but then again it might also add to the replay value, since some things might play out differently I guess...I don't know.

all in all I think the biggest problem seems to be that the information about this seem still pretty vague at the moment. I just hope things will be clearer soon, when we know more details we can still go apeshit

 

[zkylon]

I wish there were more western games like way of the samurai 1

that game was boss about time limits

 

[trab pu kcip]

I wish there were more western games like way of the samurai 1

that game was boss about time limits

could you explain what was boss about it to someone who hasn't played the game?

 

[zkylon]

could you explain what was boss about it to someone who hasn't played the game?

sure

basically the setup is this: you're a lone samurai/ronin type of dude that lands in a village in which two warring clans are about to fight it out for control of the land.

you start up the game and get a small introductory cutscene and tutorial sequence and are left to your own. you can talk to people, slay bandits, start up quests, explore, etc. you can kill pretty much anyone you come across and spend your time as you see fit. there's permadeath.

the game's divided into various sub-areas, and moving from one to another moves time forward a couple hours (morning, noon, evening, night, something like that).

can't remember how many days the game lasts, I think it's 2/3 days. during that time scripted events trigger whether you're at the place of occurrence or not, and the plot moves forwards whether you engage with it or not. think majora's mask, but without being able to turn back time.

at the third/whatever day a big battle happens and you can choose your role in it by just doing whatever you want. you can lead one clan to victory, join one clan and then betray them, find a way to unite both clans, remain neutral, defeat both and claim the land for the impoverished peasants that work it, etc.

and then it ends.

it lasts about 6 hours a playthrough and has multiple endings and sideplots you can pursue. it's meant to be replayed over and over again, and being so short encourages you to try new stuff every time you play it using your carried-over knowledge from beating the game. if you know guy x is gonna meet guy y at that place z at that time w, what would happen if you just run in and kill them both?

I think mca or another very cool guy who's name I can't remember (I think it was a matt and I remember he had a beard, but I think it wasn't matt rorie) cited way of the samurai as one of the main inspirations for alpha protocol, and it shows. it was an insanely ambitious game that did a lot of things great and made the decisions you made meaningful because you only had so many before your time ran out. it wasn't perfect or anything, but you could craft your own stories and it just felt awesome and epic.

I think they kind of messed it up with the sequels, I know for sure they removed the time limit and made the game longer in 2, which imo killed its potential for replayability, but also turned the story into something more goofy (the first game had its share of this, there was a black samurai dude with an afro for one) and not so minimalistic.

it wouldn't be the correct framework at all for a game like torment (epic personal struggles can't really get sorted out in two days), but it could make for some amazing games in the right hands (obs seem to appreciate the game, so I nominate them).

hope that answered what was so boss about it. I know everyone hates time limits but games like way of the samurai, fallout 1, dead rising, system shock 2 (not really what mca mentions but turning off alarms for 300 seconds was amazingly tense), majora's mask, persona 3, etc. have made me a believer.

edit: sorry for the wall of text and general messiness of this post, I just wrote it stream of consciousness-like and it turned out like this

 

[trab pu kcip]

sure

basically the setup is this: you're a lone samurai/ronin type of dude that lands in a village in which two warring clans are about to fight it out for control of the land.

you start up the game and get a small introductory cutscene and tutorial sequence and are left to your own. you can talk to people, slay bandits, start up quests, explore, etc. you can kill pretty much anyone you come across and spend your time as you see fit. there's permadeath.

the game's divided into various sub-areas, and moving from one to another moves time forward a couple hours (morning, noon, evening, night, something like that).

can't remember how many days the game lasts, I think it's 2/3 days. during that time scripted events trigger whether you're at the place of occurrence or not, and the plot moves forwards whether you engage with it or not. think majora's mask, but without being able to turn back time.

at the third/whatever day a big battle happens and you can choose your role in it by just doing whatever you want. you can lead one clan to victory, join one clan and then betray them, find a way to unite both clans, remain neutral, defeat both and claim the land for the impoverished peasants that work it, etc.

and then it ends.

it lasts about 6 hours a playthrough and has multiple endings and sideplots you can pursue. it's meant to be replayed over and over again, and being so short encourages you to try new stuff every time you play it using your carried-over knowledge from beating the game. if you know guy x is gonna meet guy y at that place z at that time w, what would happen if you just run in and kill them both?

I think mca or another very cool guy who's name I can't remember (I think it was a matt and I remember he had a beard, but I think it wasn't matt rorie) cited way of the samurai as one of the main inspirations for alpha protocol, and it shows. it was an insanely ambitious game that did a lot of things great and made the decisions you made meaningful because you only had so many before your time ran out. it wasn't perfect or anything, but you could craft your own stories and it just felt awesome and epic.

I think they kind of messed it up with the sequels, I know for sure they removed the time limit and made the game longer in 2, which imo killed its potential for replayability, but also turned the story into something more goofy (the first game had its share of this, there was a black samurai dude with an afro for one) and not so minimalistic.

it wouldn't be the correct framework at all for a game like torment (epic personal struggles can't really get sorted out in two days), but it could make for some amazing games in the right hands (obs seem to appreciate the game, so I nominate them).

hope that answered what was so boss about it. I know everyone hates time limits but games like way of the samurai, fallout 1, dead rising, system shock 2 (not really what mca mentions but turning off alarms for 300 seconds was amazingly tense), majora's mask, persona 3, etc. have made me a believer.

edit: sorry for the wall of text and general messiness of this post, I just wrote it stream of consciousness-like and it turned out like this

thanks I really appreciate that you went into such detail this stuff is interesting to know/consider now, just shows that time limits can be executed in various ways and again: we should probably wait until there's more specific information about ToN on this matter.
maybe time limits can turn out all right after all^^

ps: probably going to get that time while waiting for ToN and WL2
edit: wtf I meant probably going to get that GAME...man it's not healthy reading a more than a week old post

 

[Fjordson]

What a nice breakdown zyklon. I loved that game.

Another example of why I love lurking this and the Project Eternity thread. Y'all are way more articulate than me when it comes to RPG's and certain game mechanics and whatnot. Shit gets broken down in here man.

 

[trab pu kcip]

What a nice breakdown zyklon. I loved that game.

Another example of why I love lurking this and the Project Eternity thread. Y'all are way more articulate than me when it comes to RPG's and certain game mechanics and whatnot. Shit gets broken down in here man.

yes, those + the wasteland2 & shadowrun thread = all the gaming side I need
c-rpgers are a special breed of gamer it seems

 

[FACE]

It helps that people from InXile read this thread.

 

[zkylon]

thanks I really appreciate that you went into such detail this stuff is interesting to know/consider now, just shows that time limits can be executed in various ways and again: we should probably wait until there's more specific information about ToN on this matter.
maybe time limits can turn out all right after all^^

ps: probably going to get that time while waiting for ToN and WL2

np

I'm not saying torment HAS to have a time limit or anything, but I think it's an effective tool that shouldn't be left out just because it's normal for rpgs to let you live at your own pace. if it's the most adequate way to move forward the main story or some quest or something so be it.

I'm excited to see what they come up with, even if planescape is one of my favorite games of all times I've been just barely following this game ever since I backed it because it's just too many developer diaries to read in the little time I have (that I don't spend on gaf)

What a nice breakdown zyklon. I loved that game.

why do you hate my name gaf T_T

 

[Fjordson]

Shit! Sorry =[ I usually get it right from seeing you in Fallout discussions. My bad :lol

 

[injurai]

why do you hate my name gaf T_T

haha, oh wow. Just now noticed that...

 

[zkylon]

It helps that people from InXile read this thread.

tbh I don't want to push anything to them, I'm fine with whatever they decide to make as long as it's raw, pure and unhinged (which is a bit much to ask too heh).

like, a lot of people whined about new vegas not having post-endgame play (I think it might've been named as a negative in actual professional reviews, even) and I felt that was an unnecessary pressure for the devs to add something that they felt was contrary to the game they were making.

I'd really like to see them try and turn the foundations of what a rpg is on its head, like planescape did in its time, and to find myself surprised and intrigued.

but that's about it

 

[trab pu kcip]

tbh I don't want to push anything to them, I'm fine with whatever they decide to make as long as it's raw, pure and unhinged (which is a bit much to ask too heh).

like, a lot of people whined about new vegas not having post-endgame play (I think it might've been named as a negative in actual professional reviews, even) and I felt that was an unnecessary pressure for the devs to add something that they felt was contrary to the game they were making.

I'd really like to see them try and turn the foundations of what a rpg is on its head, like planescape did in its time, and to find myself surprised and intrigued.

but that's about it

nicely put. I agree.
it's still fun to dissect every new information a bit here, that's what GAF is for I guess

 

[FACE]

tbh I don't want to push anything to them, I'm fine with whatever they decide to make as long as it's raw, pure and unhinged (which is a bit much to ask too heh).

like, a lot of people whined about new vegas not having post-endgame play (I think it might've been named as a negative in actual professional reviews, even) and I felt that was an unnecessary pressure for the devs to add something that they felt was contrary to the game they were making.

I'd really like to see them try and turn the foundations of what a rpg is on its head, like planescape did in its time, and to find myself surprised and intrigued.

but that's about it

I see it as constructive feedback

 

[slayn]

I really love time pressures that force you to prioritize your actions. Otherwise I find myself completing quests on a basis of what is most efficient/convenient. I also find it makes the world feel more alive by having the world do its own thing whether I'm involved or not. I don't like being the sole catalyst for all causes/effects in the game as it makes the game itself feel like a static toy for me to just push around.

For example, I thought time limits were done excellently in Star Control 2. The way the star map worked let you see the rate that other civilizations were acting and gave you a sense of how much time until shit went down. The Pkunk migration, Sending your allies to stall the war and buy you more time, and so on made the world feel much more immersive.

Star Control 2 was all about exploration and the constraints really enhanced that because it forced me to think about what I really wanted to accomplish and the steps to do it rather than just, "well the closest planet I have a quest for is this one so I guess I'll go do it."

Mass Effect on the other hand, where the bad guys sit on their asses accomplishing nothing until you choose to initiate final mission, felt really dumb and poorly thought out by comparison.

 

[Spectacular Dr Dawg]

How to make a Torment game - an interview with Kevin Saunders and Adam Heine

 

[FACE]

How to make a Torment game - an interview with Kevin Saunders and Adam Heine

Fantastic interview, props to Vault Dweller and Kevin Saunders

 

[Aselith]

I wish there were more western games like way of the samurai 1

that game was boss about time limits

It was boss in general. Game is fucking great.

 

[zkylon]

It was boss in general. Game is fucking great.

you speak nothing but the truth, my friend

 

[Izcarielo]

Hey guys
Do you know if there are books based in the Numenera setting? when i read the game's plot about you being a Castoff, the existence of a changing god and an angel of entropy i was very eager about knowing more of that lore.
Thanks in advance!

 

[Naito]

There's currently this short ebook anthology, Tales from the Ninth World, written by Monte Cook and Shanna Germain.
You can also check The Amber Monolith, the first short story of the Ninth World - it's free, available to everyone.

 

[trab pu kcip]

There's currently this short ebook anthology, Tales from the Ninth World, written by Monte Cook and Shanna Germain.

jep and then there will be the corebook of course, but only if you're into that kind of rpg

 

[Naito]

jep and then there will be the corebook of course, but only if you're into that kind of rpg

Aye, how could I forget the rpg books. It seems everything's on schedule and they'll start shipping the corebooks on the first week of August,
in one month (!) more or less. Personally I can't wait to get my hands on it and start running campaigns

 

[Acidote]

Boo timed quests booooo

 

[dude]

Eh. I personally love timed quests to the point I want all quests to be timed (well, depending on how it's done, of curse). I also love taking my times sometimes, but sometimes there's a price to pay for doing that.

 

[zkylon]

Eh. I personally love timed quests to the point I want all quests to be timed (well, depending on how it's done, of curse). I also love taking my times sometimes, but sometimes there's a price to pay for doing that.

I like you

 

[Izcarielo]

There's currently this short ebook anthology, Tales from the Ninth World, written by Monte Cook and Shanna Germain.
You can also check The Amber Monolith, the first short story of the Ninth World - it's free, available to everyone.

Thank you very much ! Will read them as soon as possible
On the other hand that corebook seems to be aimed to the tabletop players.
Will i find lore and tales inside or just a set of rules, character sheets and that kind of things?

 

[Naito]

Thank you very much ! Will read them as soon as possible
On the other hand that corebook seems to be aimed to the tabletop players.
Will i find lore and tales inside or just a set of rules, character sheets and that kind of things?

The corebook will certainly have lore elements to put the rules and setting into context. I guess there will be short tales to describe classes and locations of Numenera.
It should be nonetheless a very good source to dive into the setting, albeit a bit mechanical in its fruition and aimed for tabletop players.
The corebook will, probably, be shipped in one month in any case; you could take a wait and see approach for the time being.

 

[FACE]

Eh. I personally love timed quests to the point I want all quests to be timed (well, depending on how it's done, of curse). I also love taking my times sometimes, but sometimes there's a price to pay for doing that.

I like timed quests as long as it makes sense, for example, if NPC A told me "If you happen to find yourself in *location* can you give this to NPC B?"(horrible quest design, don't do this InXile) then it wouldn't make a lot of sense for a timer to pop up. On the other hand, FO1's water chip quest having a time limit makes a lot of sense.

 

[SquiddyCracker]

jep and then there will be the corebook of course, but only if you're into that kind of rpg

I need to check if I backed on a tier that gave me this one.

Because it looks awesome.

 

[Bluth54]

Eh. I personally love timed quests to the point I want all quests to be timed (well, depending on how it's done, of curse). I also love taking my times sometimes, but sometimes there's a price to pay for doing that.

I hate timed quests. I never finished the first Fallout game when I was younger because I hated that the main quest was timed. I also never finished Pikmin because the main quest was timed. I just can't stand it in story based games when quests are timed (multiplayer games are fine to be timed of course).

 

[trab pu kcip]

PC Gamer talks with Kevin Saunders and Colin McComb about Torment's themes, concepts and choice and consequence mechanics.

 

[SquiddyCracker]

PC Gamer talks with Kevin Saunders and Colin McComb about Torment's themes, concepts and choice and consequence mechanics.

I love the look of the female protagonist!
Will probably play as a female simply because the male model is kinda boring.

 

[Sentenza]

I love the look of the female protagonist!
Will probably play as a female simply because the male model is kinda boring.

I thought she was a party member.

 

[FACE]

I would have preferred if the PC looked like this:

 

[trab pu kcip]

Chris Avellone talks a bit about the Torment team and writing in this GameRanx interview (also about Project Eternity)