This thread is mostly about this trope (warning, following a link to TV Tropes may waste your entire day);
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TakeYourTime
To summarize, in many games (especially RPG's) you will always have time to complete all the side-quests in the game, even if the main goal is a very urgent matter. Now this isn't something that's necessarily bad in itself. It makes sense for most games, you want to see all of the content. The obvious downside is that it might ruin the suspension of disbelief, aka immersion.
There is, however, another potential issue I think this raises. Let me set up the scenario. I was playing Dragon Age Origins. When I was in Redcliffe a girl asked me to look for her lost brother. Gamer logic tells you never to turn down quests. Naturally I was going to accept, but when I said yes Sten got all uppity about it, telling me it was a waste of time. This is when I realized that there was a massive disconnect between my motivations and what my character's motivations would be.
In real life we have to contemplate the cost of time and effort in doing something with what we get out of it. In a game time isn't a concern, and the effort (which likely involves combat) is usually desirable. Now again, this isn't a totally bad thing. When playing a game like Dragon Age you probably want a lot of content to play through.
But couldn't this be a great opportunity for defining your character? The quests a character decides to accept or turn down can say a lot about him. Someone with a shady criminal background may be more likely to take quests that aren't completely legal. A greedy character might only be interested in a job with a potentially big payoff. Someone that sympathizes with mages could turn down the quest to bring in suspected bloodmages, etc. But doing this would cost you potential XP, money, and items in the game.
So what about a game where, instead of just doing all the quests, you're limited in the number of actions you can do? My point is that choices don't need to be limited to just moral dilemmas like in most games now-days. The actions we take ought to help speak for our character and how we play the game. There are already a few games that do this to an extent, or take a different approach.
Majora's Mask is the first one that came to mind. It's actual quite clever, the threat is constantly there but you gain the infinite time you need to complete the side-quests by repeating the same 3-day cycle over and over.
Mass Effect 2 plays on this a bit I think, though I'll have to use spoiler tags.
Lastly, Echo Bazaar and some other web-based games limit the number of actions you can do per day. Thus instead of just doing everything you have to consider what the most profitable actions available are, or what suits your character the best.
So for an experimental game, how about limiting the number of quests you can do over a certain time, or before you have to advance the story? You could do this by a set number or through a time limit. You could also impose some form of cost on the player when they pick up a quest. This way people have to take greater consideration for what quests they do, rather than just clicking "accept" at every quest giver. This could also greatly improve replay value, since you will be giving out more content than can be completed in a single play through.
Now I'm sure some people will say that putting costs on the players actions is a bad idea. I can understand that, and I don't think this system would work for all games. But I think if picking and choosing quests were a real choice it could make for some interesting gameplay.
Thoughts?
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TakeYourTime
To summarize, in many games (especially RPG's) you will always have time to complete all the side-quests in the game, even if the main goal is a very urgent matter. Now this isn't something that's necessarily bad in itself. It makes sense for most games, you want to see all of the content. The obvious downside is that it might ruin the suspension of disbelief, aka immersion.
There is, however, another potential issue I think this raises. Let me set up the scenario. I was playing Dragon Age Origins. When I was in Redcliffe a girl asked me to look for her lost brother. Gamer logic tells you never to turn down quests. Naturally I was going to accept, but when I said yes Sten got all uppity about it, telling me it was a waste of time. This is when I realized that there was a massive disconnect between my motivations and what my character's motivations would be.
In real life we have to contemplate the cost of time and effort in doing something with what we get out of it. In a game time isn't a concern, and the effort (which likely involves combat) is usually desirable. Now again, this isn't a totally bad thing. When playing a game like Dragon Age you probably want a lot of content to play through.
But couldn't this be a great opportunity for defining your character? The quests a character decides to accept or turn down can say a lot about him. Someone with a shady criminal background may be more likely to take quests that aren't completely legal. A greedy character might only be interested in a job with a potentially big payoff. Someone that sympathizes with mages could turn down the quest to bring in suspected bloodmages, etc. But doing this would cost you potential XP, money, and items in the game.
So what about a game where, instead of just doing all the quests, you're limited in the number of actions you can do? My point is that choices don't need to be limited to just moral dilemmas like in most games now-days. The actions we take ought to help speak for our character and how we play the game. There are already a few games that do this to an extent, or take a different approach.
Majora's Mask is the first one that came to mind. It's actual quite clever, the threat is constantly there but you gain the infinite time you need to complete the side-quests by repeating the same 3-day cycle over and over.
Mass Effect 2 plays on this a bit I think, though I'll have to use spoiler tags.
After the Reaper IFF is installed and your crew gets taken hostage, you either choose to complete more side-quests or go straight to the reapers. For every quest you do before heading out, more members of your crew will die before you can rescue them. Of course it's possible to get every member of the team loyal before going to the Reaper base so that can potentially be rendered moot.
Lastly, Echo Bazaar and some other web-based games limit the number of actions you can do per day. Thus instead of just doing everything you have to consider what the most profitable actions available are, or what suits your character the best.
So for an experimental game, how about limiting the number of quests you can do over a certain time, or before you have to advance the story? You could do this by a set number or through a time limit. You could also impose some form of cost on the player when they pick up a quest. This way people have to take greater consideration for what quests they do, rather than just clicking "accept" at every quest giver. This could also greatly improve replay value, since you will be giving out more content than can be completed in a single play through.
Now I'm sure some people will say that putting costs on the players actions is a bad idea. I can understand that, and I don't think this system would work for all games. But I think if picking and choosing quests were a real choice it could make for some interesting gameplay.
Thoughts?