The reason why open world gaming sucks.

[BloatedGuppy]

I don't get this. If I did take the time to build some detailed argument about why people don't like time limits then I would either get people just saying "strawman lol" or going on for ages about one word I used that they didn't like. So why not just stick to talking about what I think they can add and why I reject the idea that they can be easily be removed or replaced and should be.

Actually, people said "strawman lol" in response to your strawman. Rather than waste a lot of time and energy over several pages defending what you said and claiming everyone else has the problem, you COULD just accept responsibility. It's not that hard. Here are some examples:

1. "Yeah, maybe that wasn't the best choice of words."
2. "I was attempting to use hyberbole for humorous effect and came off like I actually thought that, sorry."
3. "I guess I'm just hyper sensitive, I feel like games are getting robbed of all challenge and it drives me nuts."

Or, you could continue with option 4, which is basically a refined version of "U MAD BRO? Y U MAD?" and keep wondering why people aren't engaging you in collegial discussion.

 

[Zipa]

Isnt the new final fantasy game that is coming out almost entirely based of fighting against the clock?

 

[winginson]

Personally I like the idea of time limits, maybe make them optional. I do like the added sense of urgency, do I go for the better armor or the better weapon?, Save the kitten from the tree or gather more supplies?, Can I do both?.

To me this makes all the choices you make have that much more impact on you.

 

[renegade7]

I agree. I love Skyrim, but I want to see more games like Majora's Mask.

You had plenty of freedom because you could restart the clock, but in so doing you would lose your progress in whatever task you were working on, so you had to be very careful about your time. I would dearly love to see the principal of Majora's Mask extended to an Oblivion-like scale.

 

[pilouuuu]

Well, Mass Effect 3 had a time limit for some quests and that resulted in that I lost a few quests and I said "Fuck that! Well, nevermind... I don't care, if you don't want me to play your stupid quests, Bioware, it's OK, I won't play them.". And after the awful ending I don't have any intentions to play the game any time soon, if ever, so those are lost quests for me. Maybe some were actually good...

 

[Ickorus]

You might be interested in this game, OP:

http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1473965863/sui-generis

Essentially life goes on whilst you faff about in the depths of a dungeon.

I do agree to an extent with you, I love my open-world games but very often it feels like story has been sacrificed for it and as a big fan of lore and exploration that leaves me in a bit of a pickle.

 

[The Funslinger]

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.

Terrible idea. Glad someone came out and said it.

That said, I actually like the stories in the Elderscrolls games. Yeah, pissing about while Alduin goes desecrating the corpses of his friends somewhat breaks the flow, but that's on you.

This is a game where you assume the role of the Dragonborn, and that means I acted in character to how I thought my character would act, and reacted to events with an appropriate sense of urgency. I didn't cut out sidequests and exploration completely. I did some of them, as I travelled manually a lot of the time, which is often an aspect of 'journey of the hero' type stories; taking time from the larger goals to help with smaller, but still impactful issues.

That's also how I acted in the Mass Effect games, and one thing that really impressed me about ME3 was the way that bit my character in the ass. Got Ashley to the hospital, visited her, and then left. Shit started blowing up on Tuchanka, and it all had a sense of urgency that told me it needed dealing with now.

So I lost Ashley. That was an emotionally impactful development and a brilliant way to utilize the freedom aspect of a game.

 

[Ranorak]

SNIP

What's stopping you from ROLEPLAYING this urgency?
Keep time yourself?

Example: In skyrim, after you escape from the Tutorial Town and arive in ... the people ask you to warn the Jarl, so he can send guards.

Why can't you just think for your self, Oh! my character would find that important, lets hurry.
Or; Meh, what do I care about your town... is that a mine over there?

Sure, the game might not punish you, but there is nothing stopping you from setting up your own limits.

 

[Glademaster_v1legacy]

It completely defeats the purpose of why people play those games. If you don't like it set yourself an arbitrary time limit in the game world you think is fair and if you don't meet it delete your save. Just like what people do in a Nuzlocke challenge. Why do you need people to enforce this when you can do it yourself? As others on this forum many times complaining about JRPGS you are in a RPG start doing so RPing in your Ging.

 

[BehattedWanderer]

I...don't want any of that, unless it's a case-sensitive thing. Fallout 1 and Majora's Mask both showed that games with a time limit can be amazing as you understand that you can't do everything, so you try to do as much as you can in that time, or you play it multiple times to get the most out of it, or you have a way to reset the time without losing all progress (just most of it). But this argument seems to stem mostly around the Elder Scrolls games, where timing and narrative pacing are things far and away foreign ideas. Something like Infamous 2, however, a large open-world game that has remarkable progression and a distinctly paced narrative that gives a great sense of timing, doesn't need a time limit because as the missions progress, and at loading screens, you see the Beast coming your way. Do keep in mind which elements the game in question is using most, though. You don't like games with bad narrative pacing? Play Deus Ex, or Dishonored. You want to dick around in a large sandbox filled with all kinds of ways you can play a game? Play Prototype. You want all pacing with little motivation? Play Black Ops, or something.

Or, you could just play Majora's Mask, and realize how annoying, though interesting as it may be, to have that ticking clock the whole time.

 

[TheVampwizimp_v1legacy]

SNIP

What's stopping you from ROLEPLAYING this urgency?
Keep time yourself?

Example: In skyrim, after you escape from the Tutorial Town and arive in ... the people ask you to warn the Jarl, so he can send guards.

Why can't you just think for your self, Oh! my character would find that important, lets hurry.
Or; Meh, what do I care about your town... is that a mine over there?

Sure, the game might not punish you, but there is nothing stopping you from setting up your own limits.

This is the solution. I played Skyrim about 8 times in six months after it released, but for the last six months since I had totally lost interest. The world feels so flat, and your character's interaction with it is meaningless. I totally understand the position that a time limit is the best way to create urgency and need in a plot, the best way to move it forward. The problems with this have been documented here, but I would be willing to sacrifice certain things to get a better feeling of a living world with consequences.

So, one day I had the idea that the only way I was going to go back to Skyrim was to fabricate my own sense of urgency. In RPGs I always try to roleplay, try to get into the heads of characters and do what they would do. But this time, I decided to take it to the furthest extreme and play a game with as realistic a character as possible. I developed a backstory for her and a set of motivations, and since the start of the game I have tried my hardest to stick to this setup as meticulously as possible.

She needs to eat every day, she needs to find shelter and rest every night, if she contracts a disease she may be laid up in bed for days. I have not nor will I ever fast travel; the closest I will allow is to hire a carriage. She has doubts and fears that she can't just shake off because her user has no limitations. The decisions I have made with her are all with her mind and her options as a person, and never with the idea of making the game easier for myself. Total committment to living in this world and reacting to its possibilities and dangers and problems from the personal perspective of someone who does not know all the ins and outs of the world. And it is the most fun I have ever had playing Skyrim.

SO, this is clearly a problem that has a simple solution. Just take it upon yourself to build an atmosphere appropriate to what you want to do. No one can interfere in that.

 

[More Fun To Compute]

SNIP

What's stopping you from ROLEPLAYING this urgency?
Keep time yourself?

Example: In skyrim, after you escape from the Tutorial Town and arive in ... the people ask you to warn the Jarl, so he can send guards.

Why can't you just think for your self, Oh! my character would find that important, lets hurry.
Or; Meh, what do I care about your town... is that a mine over there?

Sure, the game might not punish you, but there is nothing stopping you from setting up your own limits.

Because it's a role playing game that is supposed to be moderated by the game. Not some sort of acting workshop. You might as well say why don't I play ET on the Atari and pretend that it is the best game ever and really faithful to the movie. I suppose that I could do that.

Actually, people said "strawman lol" in response to your strawman. Rather than waste a lot of time and energy over several pages defending what you said and claiming everyone else has the problem, you COULD just accept responsibility. It's not that hard. Here are some examples:

1. "Yeah, maybe that wasn't the best choice of words."
2. "I was attempting to use hyberbole for humorous effect and came off like I actually thought that, sorry."
3. "I guess I'm just hyper sensitive, I feel like games are getting robbed of all challenge and it drives me nuts."

Or, you could continue with option 4, which is basically a refined version of "U MAD BRO? Y U MAD?" and keep wondering why people aren't engaging you in collegial discussion.

I'm not sorry about it. To be honest I don't see it as being that offensive in the great scheme of things. I suppose it could be argued that the term pussy is gendered and that it is bad associating it with something as weak as people who can't handle time limited quests in RPGs. In that case I apologise to women.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

I'm not sorry about it. To be honest I don't see it as being that offensive in the great scheme of things. I suppose it could be argued that the term pussy is gendered and that it is bad associating it with something as weak as people who can't handle time limited quests in RPGs. In that case I apologise to women.

Ah yes. They "can't handle it".

I guess it's obvious we've taken this as far as it can go. This has been a very revelatory conversation though, so thank you.

 

[carpathic]

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

More than just annoying, the detract from my enjoyment of the game. I play games to do what I want to do. Not what some developer thinks is important. I understand the concept of the time limit, but I can only imagine wanting to punch someone if I finally got that last stat increase or somesuch and the game ended. I would be furious.

Games - especially RPGs are about the story emerging through my adventures, I simply cannot conceive of how this is helped by a time limit.

 

[Adam Jensen_v1legacy]

A time limit? Are you fuckin' serious? People want to relax when they're playing free roaming games. They want to escape from reality where the time limit to do stuff exists. It's one of the worst ideas I've ever heard. If you want a time limit, then limit yourself. Time measurement is an abstract idea anyway.

 

[IamLEAM1983]

I don't know. As much as it made sense in context, I thought the time limit in both Dead Rising titles was a little frustrating. Virtually the only way to level Frank West or Chuck Greene is to spend your first run-through wantonly killing zombies left and right to grind for experience, purposefully pushing yourself towards failure as many times as you'll need to eventually be able to stand up to the games' tougher challenges.

Open World games give you a clear choice in their mechanics. If an NPC tells you something is of the utmost importance, you're free to role-play that as being the case and get on with it, or to dismiss it and go about your business. You mentioned Oblivion, OP, but you failed to realize that not everyone in that situation would be unfailingly heroic. In one of my playthroughs, I went through the Thieves Guild and Dark Brotherhood questlines long before speaking to Jauffre. Why? Because that's what mattered to my guy. Saving the empire was of secondary importance to the immediate allure of easy money.

Other characters I've played, along with my main guy in Skyrim, immediately latched onto the severity of the main quest. I ignored virtually everything else until I'd killed Alduin and then went through the business of getting all the sidequests tied up. A timer would defeat this kind of approach entirely, more or less killing any role-playing opportunities in the egg. This would be the game telling me "Screw personal motivations or your character potentially being a selfish prick, THE WORLD NEEDS SAVING NOW!".

So, no. Nix on timers. Give me choice any day of the week.

 

[Canadamus Prime]

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.

Pretty much this. Because the story generally revolves around the Player Character whose the game's main protagonist. If you, the Player, decide to take the Player Character off to do something completely unrelated to the story then the story doesn't advance. Which can lead to amusing situations where, like in Oblivion and Skyrim, where the world is teetering on the brink of destruction, but the hero decided to go off and explore some caves instead. The world is peril, but no rush.

 

[clippen05]

So much, "Stop liking what I don't like," in this thread. On both sides of the argument too. I personally like this idea, although it shouldn't necessarily be in every open-world game, it could benefit some.

 

[RobfromtheGulag]

This is a conundrum, as the developers want you to, perhaps rightfully so, have your cake and eat it too. I just beat Arkham City, and I was struck by the guy on the loudspeaker calling out the hours until the doomsday plan went into effect. If I pissed around for a couple hours he wouldn't say anything, whereas if I rushed the main quest he'd be calling out 15min intervals.

I was going to do a huge list of reasons open world is or isn't good, but that's not the question at stake here, so I'll just say open world trumps confined story areas. It's why we loved games like FF7. So the problem becomes how to imply urgency in a game. And this doesn't have to be open world, because games can be linear but still rely on triggers rather than actual time limits. The thing is, just about no one enjoys time limits. It causes stress, and punishes players for exploring areas and taking note of little details.

I imagine you could write a story that only implied time limits, like Metal Gear Solid (1). Then it's revealed that there never was one, but this would get old quick.

 

[Netrigan]

As many have said, the joy of open-world games is the ability to just head out and do whatever you like when you like. Right now I'm playing Far Cry 3 and I tend to binge on various activities, so I might spend a play session just doing story missions or climbing towers or taking over enemy bases or just wandering around collecting items. It's very much a mood thing.

The only problem is too often the games try to create a false sense of urgency in the story missions, even though we're likely puttering around the world map trying to get random achievements.

The compromise would likely be having tangible rewards or penalties for ignoring an urgent game mission. If I have to go save my fat-ass cousin in GTA IV, then they should attach some sort of consequence to my not doing it in a timely fashion, sort of like how puttering around the galaxy in Mass Effect 2 dramatically affected the mortality of various NPCs. Or maybe the player has to face a better defended foe if he fucks about.

And it should go without saying, this shouldn't be every freakin' mission, just a select few and only when the game makes a very big deal about time being of the essence.