Bad Timing - How Clocks in Games Ruin the Fun

[Redd the Sock]

In fairness, I get timers. In action games, they're there to keep people from being overly cautious and relying on safe spots and exploits to rack up kills, exp and high scores. If they're forgiving, I have no real issue.

FFXIII-3 is a unique case. I get what they were going for: FFVII made it hard to feel the tension and desperation of the meteor when you can have long periods of chocobo eugenics before it hits. It wasn't the worst idea in the game, but a lack of quest markers and unfamiliarity with the area does leave one too shocked under the deadline. On the other end, if you use a guide, the limit is too damn forgiving, leaving days on the end with little to do on the quest list.

 

[Thanatos2k]

The only game this hasn't bothered me in has been Valkyrie Profile, where you had more than enough time to do whatever you wanted.

Every other game with a timing system has bothered me, from the Atelier games to Majora's Mask. Timing systems do nothing but curtail exploration and experimentation which should be encouraged, not punished.

(As an aside, retro platforms had timers probably as a carryover from their arcade counterparts, where the timer prevented you from just starting a game and walking away)

 

[Pyrian]

Timers can be annoying, but what really gets to me is all those rush-rush-rush we have to do this now-now-now story elements that don't have any sort of timer, and which you'll always arrive at the last second whether you surged through or whether you wandered off to complete most of the game before coming and back and saving the side-quest in just the nick of time. Doubly so, if it's critically important to NOT rush through, and instead you need to spend your time powering up before you go to the objective you've been told is so critical to reach right away.

 

[Covarr]

I'm still annoyed thay peoples fear of timers basically ended up ruining Pikmin 2. In my eyes, the timer was the entire point of the game, the challenge WAS the Timer. Every day you had to plan ahead, you needed to plan how to use every day, and if you made a mistake you had to make new plans to compensate so you still had time enough to complete the game.

The reason people didn't like the timers in Pikmin 2 was because it wasn't clear how much you needed to get done in a given day. By design, some days were more productive than others, gave access to more ship pieces, but it was often impossible to know how well you were doing until it was too late. Having to redo most of the game because of a non-obvious mistake early on is incredibly frustrating.

P.S. Thanks

 

[Rad Party God]

Goddamit, ninja'd about Majora's Mask right in the second comment. Yup, that game's timer is great and probably the best example of how to use a timer.

Also Pikmin comes to mind, that game was stressing as hell in my first couple of playthroughs, I kept losing my pikmins because I couldn't bring everyone at the end of a day, so I had to waste 2 or 3 days aquiring more pikmins to continue doing my objectives and before I notice, I already wasted 15 days and I haven't found near half of my ship parts.

I eventually learned how to properly manage my time doing things and at what order, so I eventually conquered the game with even 1 whole week to spare.

As for old platformers (almost every single NES non-Megaman platformer) and older shooters with timers, I generally don't mind, I always tried to finish the level on the shortest amount of time possible (with secrets and all).

I guess I approach each game differently, I don't expect to have a slow paced and methodical experience with each game.

 

[scorptatious]

I'm okay with timers that designate scoring or are otherwise optional/bonus material. It's when timers determine how long I can play a given game that I'm bothered.

I'm playing X game because I want to enjoy playing the game, not to rush through it on a timetable. >:|

Valkyria Chronicles is problematic in a related, but different way: gaining experience (pretty important, rather than just bonus cash or the like) based on how fast you can finish a mission based on the number of turns you take. It's the turn-based version of a timer, basically, and it seems...well, dumb to me. Why would soldiers who act recklessly by rushing into dangerous situations rather than approach the problem via tactically sound decision-making be better-rewarded? It's like demanding extra hazard pay because you put yourself in harm's way...when you didn't need to. Nonsensical.

I love Valkyria Chronicles, but I agree, the ranking system in that game is too focused on how fast you beat it.

If there were other factors to the ranking system, such as how many enemy leaders you've killed, how many of your units died or became incapacitated, ect. that wouldn't be as bad.

Hell, I remember having the guide to the game, and the guide itself said it was more fun to aim for a B rank in Ch. 3's mission. When the guide itself is telling you to go against the game's ranking system in order to get the most of your experience, something is up.

At the very least though, the game still gives you those special Randgriz weapons if you at least get B ranks in the later missions.

 

[whycantijustdeletemyaccount]

.

 

[Sniper Team 4]

I admit that the timer in Lightning Returns is a bit stressful. I'm playing with the walkthrough, and it suggests what time you should finish certain events. It's very stressing watching the clock and realizing that I'm not keeping pace with the game. I was actually skipping conversations because I was afraid it was eating into my time. Took me a few hours to realize that it wasn't.
I wish that, in New Game+, you had the option of turning the timer off. But at least you can pause the clock for some time.

 

[JCAll]

The timer in Monster Hunter ticks me off. There's nothing like having a monster on the ropes, then the AI deciding to play keep away for 15 minutes and DING you've just flushed away an hour of your life. Not even counting the monsters that I'm sure are designed to take 5 minutes longer than the time limit to actually kill.

Majora's Mask didn't even really have a timer. The clock wasn't out to kill you there, it just pressured you on dungeons and sidequests. For the most part, it was just for keeping track of the schedules for all the people you could meet. Lightning Returns has the screw you kind of timer.

 

[FPLOON]

I think the first time I've played anything involving time (kinda) was Persona 3 FES... and making sure that I took care of some of Elizabeth's request while making sure that I took care of both my studies as well as making sure both my Persona team and actual teammates were ready for the next pending Dark Hour...

Then again, I stand by the thought that in-game timers need some kind of leeway in some way so that any "punishment" for not taking care of something on time is for stuff that's pretty unimportant as well as the noting that you can try again in New Game +, as long as the other quest that you completed beforehand do not have to be completed again this playthrough time...

Now, to chalk up "timers" alongside "lives" as that "optional mode" that should only be mandatory if it's not so much as a punishing blow in the self-esteem department, but as a key component that integrated well within the grand scheme of the gameplay... More Majora's Mask and Persona 3/4 and less... uh... Lightning Returns?

 

[Kiste]

If it has time limits for anything but isolated time challenges and isn't a racer or sports game, I won't buy it. There is not a game mechanic I loath more and I fully support banning every producer and game designer who thinks that crap like this is a good idea from the game industry forever.

 

[Neta]

This is one of the reasons I love The World Ends With You. When I very first started playing and was told I only had "one hour" to solve the mission I felt my heart sink a little. But then when I realised that this "time limit" was a story mechanic rather than a gameplay one, I felt a lot better and was happy to take my time fighting battles and listening to the soundtrack.

But real, actual countdown time limits? Yeah, thanks but no thanks. All you're doing is counting down my patience.

 

[IrisNetwork]

The only RPG with a timer that works as I know is Zelda: Majora's Mask. The best part of the timer is that its mainly under your control. Sure, time goes on if you do nothing and the world ends in 3 days, it keeps telling you but you have the Orcarina of Time which you can use to slow the pace or even go back to the first day anytime.

You get side quests and more info on the world by talking to NPCs but the game gives you a handy little notebook stating what time an event occurs, allowing you to plan it out. I guess Dead Rising adopted that method later on.

So, are ya gonna review Lords of Shadow 2 with the "Like God of War But" stamp out or are ya gonna check the Thief reboot anytime soon?

 

[heroicbob]

personally i dont like missable stuff in any game playing a game with the strategy guide open on the other monitor ruins the experience, more to the point they shouldnt put in missable stuff and make no reference to it at any time.

im looking at you final fantasy 12

 

[Colt47]

I'm okay with timers that designate scoring or are otherwise optional/bonus material. It's when timers determine how long I can play a given game that I'm bothered.

I'm playing X game because I want to enjoy playing the game, not to rush through it on a timetable. >:|

Valkyria Chronicles is problematic in a related, but different way: gaining experience (pretty important, rather than just bonus cash or the like) based on how fast you can finish a mission based on the number of turns you take. It's the turn-based version of a timer, basically, and it seems...well, dumb to me. Why would soldiers who act recklessly by rushing into dangerous situations rather than approach the problem via tactically sound decision-making be better-rewarded? It's like demanding extra hazard pay because you put yourself in harm's way...when you didn't need to. Nonsensical.

I love Valkyria Chronicles, but I agree, the ranking system in that game is too focused on how fast you beat it.

If there were other factors to the ranking system, such as how many enemy leaders you've killed, how many of your units died or became incapacitated, ect. that wouldn't be as bad.

Hell, I remember having the guide to the game, and the guide itself said it was more fun to aim for a B rank in Ch. 3's mission. When the guide itself is telling you to go against the game's ranking system in order to get the most of your experience, something is up.

At the very least though, the game still gives you those special Randgriz weapons if you at least get B ranks in the later missions.

Ugh, I bought Valkyria Chronicles for the PS3 well after it's release due to fan acclaim. That game could have been so much better if it didn't focus so much on the number of turns used to beat each battle! It seemed like the game maker wanted to have the battles play out like chess matches, except that in chess there is nothing wrong with sacrificing pieces if it leads to a quicker victory. Valkyria Chronicles is a game where we have actual attachment to said game pieces, which runs against the idea that there are expendable units for the sake of victory. That and having turn based victory in a game where even the most accurate weapon can miss, wasting a turn?

Of course, then we have them refusing to release the later games in the US that supposedly fixed the issues due to poor sales of the first game...

*****************************************************************************
As for timers, the best ones I've seen in gaming are Majora's Mask and Ephemeral Fantasia's timers. The key reason for this is due to what happens when time runs out: The game just resets to a specific point in time. In ephemeral fantasia, incomplete quests get reset, but you keep experience gained and at least know what to do (or not to) on the next swing, so there's no punishment for incompletes.

 

[scorptatious]

I'm okay with timers that designate scoring or are otherwise optional/bonus material. It's when timers determine how long I can play a given game that I'm bothered.

I'm playing X game because I want to enjoy playing the game, not to rush through it on a timetable. >:|

Valkyria Chronicles is problematic in a related, but different way: gaining experience (pretty important, rather than just bonus cash or the like) based on how fast you can finish a mission based on the number of turns you take. It's the turn-based version of a timer, basically, and it seems...well, dumb to me. Why would soldiers who act recklessly by rushing into dangerous situations rather than approach the problem via tactically sound decision-making be better-rewarded? It's like demanding extra hazard pay because you put yourself in harm's way...when you didn't need to. Nonsensical.

I love Valkyria Chronicles, but I agree, the ranking system in that game is too focused on how fast you beat it.

If there were other factors to the ranking system, such as how many enemy leaders you've killed, how many of your units died or became incapacitated, ect. that wouldn't be as bad.

Hell, I remember having the guide to the game, and the guide itself said it was more fun to aim for a B rank in Ch. 3's mission. When the guide itself is telling you to go against the game's ranking system in order to get the most of your experience, something is up.

At the very least though, the game still gives you those special Randgriz weapons if you at least get B ranks in the later missions.

Ugh, I bought Valkyria Chronicles for the PS3 well after it's release due to fan acclaim. That game could have been so much better if it didn't focus so much on the number of turns used to beat each battle! It seemed like the game maker wanted to have the battles play out like chess matches, except that in chess there is nothing wrong with sacrificing pieces if it leads to a quicker victory. Valkyria Chronicles is a game where we have actual attachment to said game pieces, which runs against the idea that there are expendable units for the sake of victory. That and having turn based victory in a game where even the most accurate weapon can miss, wasting a turn?

Of course, then we have them refusing to release the later games in the US that supposedly fixed the issues due to poor sales of the first game...

Yeah, SEGA seems to have a weird thing of not any releasing any games of theirs outside of Japan that don't have the words "Sonic" or "Hedgehog" in them.

As for the sequels, VC2 technically did get released out here in the US. It was on the PSP though for god knows what reason, so I'd imagine that didn't help it's sales at all. Frankly though, I didn't find it very good compared to the first game, so I guess it wasn't a huge loss.

 

[twosage]

It's a good thing Yahtzee's apparently never played "Spelunky", then. I got it on a whim based on screenshots and the Steam description expecting a rogue-like puzzle-platformer that I could take my time on. Then I played it and discovered that at if you linger in a level for two and a half minutes, an invincible ghost starts to chase you around the screen, killing you instantly if it catches you. It's a totally defensible game mechanic (the ghost turns gems into more valuable ones, so there is a risk/reward dynamic to it), but it put me on edge and made playing the game feel unpleasant.

Because it's a PC game, I expected to find some "no Ghost" mod out there, but instead all I found were forum threads of people looking for such a mod and (this is crazy part to me) a barrage of replies mocking and deriding the OP. From their point of view, the Ghost was "the way the game was meant to be played" and even suggesting you don't like it meant that you were stupid for having bought the game in the first place and sucked too much at the game to be worthy of playing it.

I eventually did find a helpful Hex edit that lengthened the timer to 10 minutes, but I am still amazed at the ferocity of the "hardcore" Spelunky players (I'm sure none of which would bat an eye at modding Skyrim a million different ways regardless of how Bethesda "meant it to be played"). Anyway, rant off...

 

[Shjade]

Hell, I remember having the guide to the game, and the guide itself said it was more fun to aim for a B rank in Ch. 3's mission. When the guide itself is telling you to go against the game's ranking system in order to get the most of your experience, something is up.

At the very least though, the game still gives you those special Randgriz weapons if you at least get B ranks in the later missions.

That's sorta encouraging, I guess. I still haven't even started the second mission because finding out xp gain is based off of how stupidly reckless I can be in rushing through the game was a major turn-off. If going for B's is good enough I can deal with that.