I''m also the kind of player that likes to explore and take his time looking at stuff and doing meaningless quests (leveling up). So adding that time-constraint... it really depends on how it''s implemented.

The player (always assume this is his second RPG, not a first-timer and not a pro) should really have it clear what is going down, and what time it is.

A count-down watch, some marking on a map, a "current quest" dialog, a newspaper, anything. It should be completely clear to the player what is going to happen next, and when, and where. Even though he just clicked through the dialog with the mayor. If you accept quests they should be ordered in time-line.

I kinda like that "newspaper of tomorrow" show. Ever seen it? It''s about a guy who gets tomorrows newspaper, today. So he knows what will happen today, where, and when. Of course, he''s got a to big of a heart to just let it be (or use the newspaper to gain some cash at the stock market). Sometimes two things will happen at the same time, and he must choose. Also, sometimes, at he''s accidently in a third choice that either completes the first two ones or boots them.

What if the player writes his own "newspaper"/diary? When I first read AP''s post I thought this was going to be a game where you could go back and forth in time?.. Well if you can, how will the player do it? Say he notices he just missed out on a quest, will he be able to backstep so he can complete it, or that thing is gone forever?

Ever played Chrono Trigger for the SNES? Wow! that was a _great_ time travel game!!! You could do stuff in the past that would seriously affect the future. One time you had the chance of going back in time and save a girls mother from getting her legs choped of in a machine accident. If you succeded she''d be walking around in the future, if you failed she would sit at her chair all the time. I failed, and still have nightmares about that

Fallout 1 had a nice time quest, but it was only one. And had a big counter in the "Pip-boy" (character info page).


Don''t expect to much of players. If one hears someone talking about a march at 12.00 the 5th of june, and the player goes around exploring he might miss the time by pure forgetfullness (or he was really really really enjoying the world you created for him). Don''t hold that against him or he''ll think it was stupid


really liked the bridge idea though, just remember not to miss the action event that would usually trigger the brigde. Normally, as you said, that bridge wouldn''t open until you finish a sidequest. But that usually has a meaning. Example: You can''t get the bridge until you saved the mayors daughter. Why? Because in the citadel where you resque her you''ll get Weird-works-on-all-evil-citadel-places-Key that you''ll need sometime after the bridge.

Those things might not been essential, but some things have to be. Or do they?..

"No lies of sugar can sweeten the sournes of reality"

}+TITANIUM+{ A.K.A. DXnewbie[onMIRC]

I would use something where an hour is a day, and so on. I like the way the D&D rules do it.

Scott Simontis
Big Joke: C#

I disagree that the player should know exactly whats coming up, and when and where. That takes away greatly from the story.

Also the reason most rpg have a quest that you must complete in order to have the bridge repeared has to do with the thier linner nature. They create specail restriction where you can and cannot travel to keep in reletivily straite path. But what if you didn''t need airship, or boat to reach new areas. When if most of the areas are available at the start for you to travel to? If you started in Fan, you could travel immeditly to Icari, Bella or just stay in Fan. Unitl you feel like leaving or are required to because of a quest.

Sure by using a time based system the player loses the ability to completely every single quest in the game. However I think it will add greatly to the players options and fun of the game. Think about it, in games like fallout you arrive at a town and complete all the towns quests then you move on since nothing ever happens in that town ever again. But with an active time system. You can return to your favortie town, and see the results of your actions and help with any new problems that have arisin. As time goes by you could contiune aid in the town growth. It could become your home, to which you return after your adventures to rest and recupirate.


Since time incduces events in the game world that also adds to replability since each time you play there can be new things for you to discover.



-----------------------------------------------------
Writer, Programer, Cook, I''m a Jack of all Trades
Current Design project
Chaos Factor Design Document

quote:

---

Original post by TechnoGoth
Sure by using a time based system the player loses the ability to completely every single quest in the game. However I think it will add greatly to the players options and fun of the game. Think about it, in games like fallout you arrive at a town and complete all the towns quests then you move on since nothing ever happens in that town ever again. But with an active time system. You can return to your favortie town, and see the results of your actions and help with any new problems that have arisin. As time goes by you could contiune aid in the town growth. It could become your home, to which you return after your adventures to rest and recupirate.

---

This can be done without making time the driving force of the game. The towns in many RPGs change as events unfold, even if the events are somewhere completely unrelated. Crono Trigger (as was already mentioned), the more recent Final Fantasies, Skies of Arcadia, etc. How often things change is up to the developer, of course (since all changes need to be coordinated; you don''t want someone moaning about a town having been destroyed before the actual event, etc.) But the events which drive the changes have generally been in the hands of the player. This is, in my mind, a Good Thing, because otherwise the player feels like he''s the one being played.

If events continue to happen as time flows forward, regardless of the player''s actions, will he really feel he has time to return to his favorite town to see the results of his actions? Or would he feel a need to keep pressing on to the next town, the next event, in an effort to beat the clock? In an event-driven game, the player can visit all of the towns he wants to in order to see what has changed. In a time-driven game, however, he can''t just jaunt off to a town that''s 200 miles away to see if there''s something new there--he needs to keep an eye on the next event he needs to get to.

Now, don''t get me wrong--as a developer/designer, I can appreciate the coolness factor of building a truly dynamic world, where people go about their lives, etc., and where it''s possible for the player to arrive "too late". However, time-driven games punish slower players; a newbie is very likely to always arrive "too late", which will lead to him feeling frustrated and even turning the game off. Coolness must take a back seat to gameplay.

Design the games for the player, not the designer.

-Odd the Hermit

PS: having said all that, if you can come up with a way to have the coolness without sacrificing the gameplay, then by all means, do so. And let me know.

A lot of people seem to be worried about not having enough time. But there is no reason except poor design that would cause the player to miss key events. Afterall the plan is for the game to take place over 4 to 5 years. Key events that the player has to participate in would take place months apart.

"But the events which drive the changes have generally been in the hands of the player. This is, in my mind, a Good Thing, because otherwise the player feels like he''s the one being played."

I''m glad you brought this up because, why should the player be the driving force in world events? In active time system the world has more substance and become a living entity. Since events and actions will be occuring the world over and not just where the player intervines. It transforms the player into a part of the world and not an outside entity as they are in most games.


-----------------------------------------------------
Writer, Programer, Cook, I''m a Jack of all Trades
Current Design project
Chaos Factor Design Document

quote:

---

Original post by TechnoGoth
This will also mean that events will run parrel to each other. Making the player choose which events to particapte in, and causing them to miss other events entirely.

---

Player has to chose which events to participate in...

quote:

---

Original post by TechnoGoth
hmm, well I think I set it up so that you could miss key events. which would have negative impact on the final outcome. But I think also that by having them close together espically near the end it adds a sense of urgancy to the game. the player having just lead a succful raid against the hertic hideout, Discover the head of the word is to be assinated during a cermoney in weeks time. The player know that it takes 5 days by train to get to the capital from here. Knows that must hurry if they want to get their in time to stop the assination.

Also part of the story deals with limitations on one person can do. There will be times when the terrible things will happen that and the player will have to make a choice. For instance while the character is busy helping prepare a small town from a flood he learns that his father''s blimp has crashed. He will have choice wether to help save the town or go in search of his father knowing that many people may die if he leaves.

---

...these events will be close together, especially towards the end of the game; sometimes, the player will be forced to miss certain events, because of being involved in others...

quote:

---

Original post by TechnoGoth
A lot of people seem to be worried about not having enough time. But there is no reason except poor design that would cause the player to miss key events. Afterall the plan is for the game to take place over 4 to 5 years. Key events that the player has to participate in would take place months apart.

---

...and yet these events will be months apart? I''m sorry, but I think I''m missing something. Mind telling me what that is?

quote:

---

Original post by TechnoGoth
I''m glad you brought this up because, why should the player be the driving force in world events? In active time system the world has more substance and become a living entity. Since events and actions will be occuring the world over and not just where the player intervines. It transforms the player into a part of the world and not an outside entity as they are in most games.

---

Personally, I''d say the player should be the driving force because, well, he''s the one playing the game. (Also, assuming it''s commercial, he''s the one who has paid for it...)

Also, I think you misunderstand--event-driven games can (and do) have things happen all over the world (not just in the player''s immediate vicinity) as a response to the player''s actions. I''m not against Town A being burnt to the ground by the dragon I didn''t get around to killing because I was busy herding sheep from Town B to Town C; I am, however, against Town A being burnt to the ground by the dragon I didn''t kill because I had to stop and heal my wounds as I was working my way through his lair. Or even because I couldn''t find his lair because the NPC who gave me directions wasn''t entirely clear (yes, I''ve played several games where I spent half an hour looking for "the Cave in the Mountains near town", simply because it wasn''t clear which mountains, what direction to go, etc.)

Having events occur in response to the player''s actions may not be true to life, but then again, neither is saving. Having the player trigger the eventsworks because it doesn''t limit the player to the designer''s expectations--he can work quickly, and rush through everything, or he can go slowly and explore; he''ll still get there right on time. Having events occur based on time inherently limits the player, and punishes him for being too slow (or too fast!).

Event-driven games can give your game everything you''re asking for, if there are enough events (unfortunately, many current RPGs don''t have much in the way of world-changing events). Time-driven games usually give the player nothing but a sense of frustration.

Again, design the games for the player, not the designer. There''s one of you, and (ideally) a whole bunch of them.

-Odd the Hermit

To see a good time-driven game, where events happen in spite of the player, play The Last Express (adventure game). It''s also one of my favourite games ever.

But how did they manage to pull it off?

1) the whole game took place on A TRAIN!
2) they let the player rewind time!

But as your game world is ...

1) HUGE -- didn''t I read in the design doc that it was about 300-400 kilometers long? (and how wide?)
2) probably not possible to rewind time because the gamestate is a lot more complex than a simple adventure game taking place on a train.

... I don''t know how you can do it. But I say if you think you can do it, try. But if you fail, be prepared to go back to not-time-driven.

"...and yet these events will be months apart? I''m sorry, but I think I''m missing something. Mind telling me what that is?"

That has to do with story progression, at the begining key events are spaced far apart giving the player a chance to explore the world, develop his character and get used to playing. Then as you get closer to the end, key events take placer closer and closer together. There are of course event driven events as well as time driven. Those EDE may or may not have a time element to them it all depends on the event. For instance if you help a scientist retrive a rare insect, and during his experment he gets bitten, He tells you that he will be dead in a month without an antidote(time factor). However another scientist ask you to retrive a rare book from an auction. After he gets he tell you about pregenesis ruin. That holds a rare aritfact he needs to complete his research. You have as much time as you want to complete this quest provioded nothing happens to him in mean time.

I also agree about players get lost because of bad directions that can be a real annoyance, I remember playing 1000 arms, and it took me 3 hours just to find the first dungeon because the directions and map sent me off in the wrong direction.

Also travel time is an issue but If I keep travel time low then it shouldn''t be a factor... unless your traveling by foot which would take a long time...

-----------------------------------------------------
Writer, Programer, Cook, I''m a Jack of all Trades
Current Design project
Chaos Factor Design Document

quote:

---

Original post by TechnoGoth
That has to do with story progression, at the begining key events are spaced far apart giving the player a chance to explore the world, develop his character and get used to playing. Then as you get closer to the end, key events take placer closer and closer together. There are of course event driven events as well as time driven. Those EDE may or may not have a time element to them it all depends on the event. For instance if you help a scientist retrive a rare insect, and during his experment he gets bitten, He tells you that he will be dead in a month without an antidote(time factor). However another scientist ask you to retrive a rare book from an auction. After he gets he tell you about pregenesis ruin. That holds a rare aritfact he needs to complete his research. You have as much time as you want to complete this quest provioded nothing happens to him in mean time.

---

My stance is that all of this can be done with event-driven games, which have the added benefit of letting the player dictate the speed of the game--if he''s a power gamer, let him try to complete everything in five hours; if he''s an explorer (or someone on their first RPG, etc.), let him spend 50 hours on it. In a time-driven game, neither of those options are available; you have to complete the game in the same time frame the designer had envisioned.

Time-driven games have many drawbacks and limitations; Majora''s Mask (and similar games) solved some of them by letting you reset the clock, but that lead to another problem (having to re-do dungeons, etc.) Event-driven games are easier to design and play, and, with some creative work, can give the same impression that you''re trying to give with your time-driven design. They don''t need to be a linear string of events--build a complex tree, where the player''s actions take them down one path or another, closing off other paths at the same time. A side benefit is that this increases replayability, since there''s a draw to explore other possible actions; in a time-based game, the player is likely to find one path through the game that works for him, and stick to it, for fear of running out of time.

-Odd the Hermit

You keep saying running out of time. But if you''ve ever played fallout 1. Which had a time limit, you would know that there was more then enought time to finish the game. I can''t imagine that the play would ever run out of time trying to beat my game. In fact I doubt players will even notice that time plays a factor in the game. Sure there will be times when they will have a week to complete a task. But the players will have enough time to finish things.



-----------------------------------------------------
Writer, Programer, Cook, I''m a Jack of all Trades
Current Design project
Chaos Factor Design Document