Endings and Time-limits are Important! (Too Freeform BS)

I hear some talk about if Elder Scroll games are "too open" and "too freeform".

The problem is lack of change and change requires an ending. Morrowind has an ending for the main quest but it doesn't effect much and is treated like a big side-quest.

Not having an ending makes the game static. Without an ending the world never changes.

RPGs can learn a lot from 4X games. 4X games can be considered the most open but they still have victory conditions, it would get too repetitive and would go on forever without them.

An RPG's story should be about the fate of something with an ending when the fate is decided. For this reason there should always be a time frame.

Most 4X games have a tech victory, the scope of the content should provide a natural limit. Once progress stops there should be an ending or else the sense of history fails.

A time limit is important. A fate will come about even if it is the character's death from old age. Without a limit the world would not change at all for 1,000's of years. The Fallout's were smart to have a hard year cap.

Playing the game after an ending can invalidate it. Ending for each area are great but going back and killing people messes things up. And solid endings projected into the future are important.

Endings are the victory conditions and set the outcome of the world for a time to come. Multiple endings are great things to have, it is similar to playing with different Civ styles in 4X games with the ending reflecting what you do to the world/universe.

So the problem isn't that the game is too open but that it isn't responsive. With a time limit and larger effects for every action, EVERYTHING IS THE MAIN QUEST. Doing nothing is effecting the main quest and changing the world.

That is what makes Fallout more gripping, the world moves without you instead of treating the player like a baby thinking that covering their eyes makes the world disappear. Or that the world is a spookhouse where the monsters take off their costumes and go smoke when the player isn't looking because the entire history of the world waits for the player.

Without a time limit the main quest is just an annoying thing to pick up and exists in a shitty vacuum. Morrowind is extremely static anyways and the lack of a time limit or real ending is only the final stamp on it.

Good post. As I think I said here the other day, stuff like time caps or an active, self-interacting world like a 4X game, or even a decaying situation like X-Com or ADOM, give every action a sense of opportunity cost, which in turn gives every action a greater context.

On the other hand, most people probably don't want to have to restart games that they've allowed to go out of control.

On the other hand, most people probably don't want to have to restart games that they've allowed to go out of control.

Click to expand...

Not necessarily. Games aren't challenging unless there's a fair chance that you can lose. Fallout's time limit was generous and I think that it's fine to do things like that. I do know that the first two times I played FO through I was frantic to not run out of time. It made me enjoy the game so much. Of course, then I realized that I had plenty of time, and if I was methodical time wasn't a problem.

What time limits also do is it puts some faith in the player. People will play better and more efficiently (and I don't know about you but I enjoy games more when I don't feel listless, which is probably why I didn't enjoy the Civ games so much) because they know they can't just idle about. If you expect players to perform well they often will. People often rise (or, more often, lower) themselves to the expectations of others and I think it works that way with games as well.

Human Shield said:

I hear some talk about if Elder Scroll games are "too open" and "too freeform".

Click to expand...

For some people, perhaps they are. Others actually enjoy the additional freedom.

The problem is lack of change and change requires an ending. Morrowind has an ending for the main quest but it doesn't effect much and is treated like a big side-quest.

Click to expand...

I cannot see why allowing the game world to change would require an ending to be included.

One of the reasons that completing the main quest in Morrowind does not have a major impact upon the world, nor end the game is to make it easier for amateurs to integrate new content.

Not having an ending makes the game static. Without an ending the world never changes.

RPGs can learn a lot from 4X games. 4X games can be considered the most open but they still have victory conditions, it would get too repetitive and would go on forever without them.

Click to expand...

Open-ended and freeform RPGs do still have victory conditions, it's just that the player has more freedom to choose what they are. A game can include a time limit and still be open-ended. For example, the character may die of old age.

How repetitive such games are depends upon how imagination the player applies when deciding his/her actions. If (s)he doesn't take advantage of the level of freedom allowed, that would be a limitation of the player not the design.

An RPG's story should be about the fate of something with an ending when the fate is decided. For this reason there should always be a time frame.

Click to expand...

Why can't it be about the fate of several somethings?

A time limit is important. A fate will come about even if it is the character's death from old age. Without a limit the world would not change at all for 1,000's of years. The Fallout's were smart to have a hard year cap.

Click to expand...

Why is change tied to a time limit? Granted, a limit would give a greater sense of urgency, but I don't see why a lack of one would prevent the player/character affecting the world.

Playing the game after an ending can invalidate it. Ending for each area are great but going back and killing people messes things up. And solid endings projected into the future are important.

Click to expand...

I'm confused about what context you're using the word "ending" in here, but it seems as if you're advocating that they be static, which doesn't seem to tie in with your view that the world must change.

So the problem isn't that the game is too open but that it isn't responsive. With a time limit and larger effects for every action, EVERYTHING IS THE MAIN QUEST. Doing nothing is effecting the main quest and changing the world.

Click to expand...

What you seem to be asking for is a more dynamic world, which I think many of us would like (myself included). However, I don't believe that a hard time limit is required.

Without a time limit the main quest is just an annoying thing to pick up and exists in a shitty vacuum. Morrowind is extremely static anyways and the lack of a time limit or real ending is only the final stamp on it.

Click to expand...

Maybe I'm just tired, but I don't quite see how this ties in with your earlier suggestion that everything you do (even if it is nothing) should count as the main quest. If that were the case, how could you avoid picking it up?

An open game where the main quest is everything, and it branches into multiple endings, has potential to be great fun.

So does a game where the main quest is optional and you can go do other random shit if you feel like it.

They're both valid. You're welcome to have preferences, but that's all they are.

Wysardry said:

For some people, perhaps they are. Others actually enjoy the additional freedom.

Click to expand...

But it is bullshit freedom. The same freedom that would come from going to an amusement park, go on the rides in any order as many times as you want but nothing changes.

I cannot see why allowing the game world to change would require an ending to be included.

Click to expand...

Because without an ending the story is restrained from going places.

You can't lead the army to crush the rebels and set up your government and then have a whole other chapter of you doing different stuff. There is a limit on the content, same as in 4X games. Forcing the player to play forever in a void is stupid.

One of the reasons that completing the main quest in Morrowind does not have a major impact upon the world, nor end the game is to make it easier for amateurs to integrate new content.

Click to expand...

You suck at English and using quotes dude.

Mods don't add a reactive world.

Open-ended and freeform RPGs do still have victory conditions, it's just that the player has more freedom to choose what they are. A game can include a time limit and still be open-ended. For example, the character may die of old age.

How repetitive such games are depends upon how imagination the player applies when deciding his/her actions. If (s)he doesn't take advantage of the level of freedom allowed, that would be a limitation of the player not the design.

Click to expand...

You don't seem to get what open-ended means. It doesn't mean look at the screen and imagine the entire game reacting how you want. And I already mentioned age.

Why can't it be about the fate of several somethings?

Click to expand...

Because time should move forward together and the world impacts of each one is too much to maintain in overlap, meaning that each has to be shallow.

Why is change tied to a time limit? Granted, a limit would give a greater sense of urgency, but I don't see why a lack of one would prevent the player/character affecting the world.

Click to expand...

Because then the world only moves in one direction, nothing is happening if you don't touch it.

It prevents the world from affecting the player which goes a long way it creating a good world, game, and story.

I'm confused about what context you're using the word "ending" in here, but it seems as if you're advocating that they be static, which doesn't seem to tie in with your view that the world must change.

Click to expand...

There would be different outcomes. Having two groups fight could have 4 basic endings, they both survive, one wins (2), or both lose.

Without an ending you don't see the world effects, they can't program years down the line of actions. And if you can go back after you see one ending, you can break it.

Maybe I'm just tired, but I don't quite see how this ties in with your earlier suggestion that everything you do (even if it is nothing) should count as the main quest. If that were the case, how could you avoid picking it up?

Click to expand...

Because if you have unlimited time it is the same as the outcome having no importance.

Time carries value. If you only had to eat when you wanted it would be less important.

Nothing has changed if you end the game either. Oh, it's neat to have the little epilogues at the end of Fallout, but the actually gameworld is still fairly static, I would prefer to see changes then some cutscenes at the end.

What would be awesome would be to have a game with the unendying freedom of Morrowind, but where major changes happened while you were still playing. Take Fallout for example - what if you do a quest that fucks up the town, and after a few days/weeks you come back and it's abandoned, or taken over by raiders, or generally turned to shit. That's better than cutscenes at the end.

Yes, static world hurt Morrowind, but it wasn't it's open-ended nature that was the problem. They could have easily gave quests more options and serious consequences which both changed the character and the world without ending the game.

Solik nailed it. I for one prefer my "bullshit" freedom. So you play what you want and I'll play what I want.

I think this has a big effect on the flavor the player is left with. The "go anywhere, do anything, no pressure" concept of Morrowind is great in the beginning. It inevitably leads to boredom in the end, no matter how compelling the beginning and/or middle of the experience was. Especially so in an expansive world. See; You play, do some of the cool frivolous stuff, explore a little, formulate a plan of attack, play through all the storylines that appeal to you. After the fun winds down, you try some of the areas that -didn't- appeal to you right off. Then, you attempt to slog through the rest of it to see if you missed anything cool. You end up, rather than being forced to quit, quitting out of sheer boredom. This is the memory the player is left with, a boring slog to the end, no matter how much fun it was when you started.

By contrast an ending allows the designer to build the plot, no matter how slowly, to an amazing crescendo. After maybe a short denouement the player is left with a "wow, that was a cool fucking game" feeling.

Those lasting impressions are the ones that get communicated when discussing games with your friends. That's IMO at least one of the reasons Morrowind gameplay gets the "boring" tag applied so often.

Zomg said:

Good post. As I think I said here the other day, stuff like time caps or an active, self-interacting world like a 4X game, or even a decaying situation like X-Com or ADOM, give every action a sense of opportunity cost, which in turn gives every action a greater context.

Click to expand...

I completely agree. I think having a time limit also helps with quests in XP based games. Quite often you end up doing quests that don't make a whole lot of sense from your characters point of view, for example a mercenary killing the rats in that cellar for no reward but XP and an item you don't need. You might as well, you're not going to lose anything by doing it. However, it doesn't sound very plausible that anyone would actually kill those rats without being properly paid just for the fun experience of it. This is especially bad in games with rather lacking evil paths like Baldur's Gate. What sometimes also happens is that the game is moralistic giving you the best reward for not asking for anything when it really doesn't make much sense in any setting. Why would you help a complete stranger for free when one would normally expect to be paid for such task? When there is a time limit, you have to think twice if rescuing the farmers fluffy bunny from the forest 50 miles away for 2gp is really worth it, like your character most likely would.

Great point, Human Shield. I wholeheartily agree.

Time limit and parallelism are very important in creating a life-like gameworld. It's not just for difficulty's sake, it's for making sense of the game, breathing life into it.

I also stress the importance of parallelism, in addition to time limits. By paralellism I mean events generated on the run *without* PC's direct influence. It may happen due to time limit, or other conditions. Hammer and Sickle offers a (somewhat limited though) scope of that. Gothic had a lot of illusionary activity, but few events really took place and mattered. Mostly, it was just critters killing each other, which had, of course, a certain effect on your experience.
It is clear that it is immensely difficult to implement that concept, in accord with a story and overall balance. However, there is no need to implement it on a global-story scale. For instance, some rich noble is offering money for the horn of a giant shadowbeast which lurks in the outskirts of the town. You have heard about it and consider doing that, because the price is nice and, hell, you just wanna kick that beast's ass. However, you get distracted, before you have a chance to kill the beast. When you finally return to this quest, you find that the shadowbeast is gone, and noble has a brand-new horn trophy hanging on his wall. The point is that you don't get instructed to get this horn *before other hunters do*. It goes without saying that you're not the only one bounty hunter in town. That is a fine example of parallelism on a moderate scale, relatively easy to implement.

Time limit is a more palatable concept, that coudl be quite easily controlled within a more or less fixed story pattern. Fallout 1 really shined because of that. However, it certainly woudl have been better if it had more time-limited side-quests. That would better introduce the term "missed opportunity" to the game.

Endings. Ending sounds kinda sad at times, unwanted, if the game is worthy. However, unless the game events are somehow randomly generated, or having some other unpopular concepts, the ending is required. The story pattern is fixed, and you can't do much about it. At some point, you'll have nothing to do in the game world, aside from killing spawning monsters all the time, which is pretty dumb.
As much as I wanted Fallout 1 to continue after the master's eradication, it is impossible, beacuse it would mean creating two games instead of one, attaching an additional main storyline. Moreover, when you see the ending, all the thoughts of "unending gameplay" disappear instantly.

Fallout 2 is a real mixed bag. It has some great story-lines, design concepts, but the abscense (with small exceptions) of timelimits and parallelism make the world seem inconsistent (excessive easter eggs and other jokes add to the inconsistency in quite the same manner, but that's another topic). The developers guide the player ny the hand all the way, making sure that only physical death (either character's, or players's, from boredom) could lead to the dreaded game over. However, unlike Morrowind, in F2 at least you could roleplay and interact with the world more closely.
The lack of consequence of player's tarry is indeed a big mistake. However, there is no clear telling as to exactky how long it would take Enclave to expose the outside world to the FEV, and, most importantly, what effect it would have. What if that could be a great plot-twist, an abrupt and surprising change to the second phase of the gameworld -- a post-post-apocalypsis? That's unlikely, of course, and even if it is, that would be an overkill, it would take a separate game to tell this story.
So I guess they should have just made a generic gameover when the player wastes too much time. Say, in two years, there would be 4-month period, in which, there would be a randomly-placed point at which gameover would take place (though it could as well be the fixed time-period). Some might say that 2 years is too small a timeframe for such a big gameworld as F2's (compared to a significally tigher-packed F1's), and that would be a good point. I think they could reach a compromise here: add the aforementioned time-limit, but leave the option of continuing the gameplay after the Enclave's demise. At least that would make sense story-wise.

I'm disappointed that Star Control II hasn't gotten mentioned here. SCII always struck me as better on the time-limit thing than FO -- and possibly inspirational of it, but who knows. Both games, however, reveal that the time limit is effectively fake, although it's a bit more real in SCII. In FO, the first time I played it -- doing all the rat-hunting quests and everything -- I solved the Water Chip quest with so much time left, it was ridiculous. SCII never pressured me, but the boards always have stories of people who got nailed by it, so maybe for some people it's a big thing.

What made SCII's so much better, in my opinion, is that when you started running out of time, there were visible consequences: whole races started getting exterminated. FO's time limit was too boolean. (Unless I'm forgetting something about how the mutant quest ran -- I'm not even sure if there was a time limit on them or if they spawned more rapidly later on or somethng . . . .) It made sense in the context of the quest, of course, but it lacked some of the oomph, since players either ran out of time and lost everything or didn't and lost nothing, whereas in SCII, many players saw things start to go sour but managed to save the day, anyway. Part of SCII's elegance, too, was that things started getting *harder* as you ran out of time -- more areas of the map became dangerous, etc. (That was true, too, if you didn't deal with the probes.)

I wonder if the solution isn't necessarily a time limit, but rather, as metallix notes, simply an independently acting (and degenerating) world. My dream game runs on that concept. As the player sits around wasting time, things get worse, although within some areas, they may get better, too (depending on circumstances). But in any event, things are changing.

As with FO and SCII, the key is that when things are going bad, there should be miniquests to stave them off (the water contract, or getting the Utwig / Suppox alliance to attack the 'Quan) so that the miniquests support the metaquest. Indeed, what FO did so well was having so many quests directed toward getting the water chip (or getting water) early on. My beef with TES games was that the miniquests were totally divorced from the metaquest, and for the most part I felt like quests were there to power me up, which, of course, might indirectly help me save the day, but the connection was tenuous.

WouldBeCreator said:

It made sense in the context of the quest, of course, but it lacked some of the oomph, since players either ran out of time and lost everything or didn't and lost nothing, whereas in SCII, many players saw things start to go sour but managed to save the day, anyway. Part of SCII's elegance, too, was that things started getting *harder* as you ran out of time -- more areas of the map became dangerous, etc. (That was true, too, if you didn't deal with the probes.)

Click to expand...

Have you played Space Rangers?

Space Rangers 2 is freeform with victory conditions: all three dominator leaders are defeated. All three can be defeated multiple ways too.

The galaxy is constantly changing too. New medical/military/business/ranger/science centers are created, systems are captured or liberated from the Dominators. Definately the kind of open-ended structure I like.

Waiting for US ver in hopes that it will be relocalized and de-Starforced.

Starflight also had a hard time limit, though I don't think many players actually had Arth's sun go nova on them.

Subquests didn't really support the main quest there, but that's because you don't know what the main quest is until you've almost beaten it.

Another point I saw is that side-quests need time limits too.

RPGs need quests that the player can actually fail, or else the world feels like grocery shopping going down a checklist.

Human Shield said:

RPGs need quests that the player can actually fail, or else the world feels like grocery shopping going down a checklist.

Click to expand...

Human Shield said:

RPGs need quests that the player can actually fail, or else the world feels like grocery shopping going down a checklist.

Click to expand...

A coda to that is that the cost of failing a quest cannot be so high as to make a player feel cheated when he loses it. The problem with RPGs currently is that there aren't that many missions and they're usually chockfull of either nice goodies, nice experience, or nice plot tidbits. So failure feels like it's not an option for a player who wants to powerplay or get the whole story. Under those circumstances, time-limited quests are just going to encourage recourse to FAQs, I'd imagine.

Another point I saw is that side-quests need time limits too.

Click to expand...

That's the point I stress the most here. It's easier to make a good time-limited and multi-threaded side-quest, than a main quest of similar nature. Hence, we should focus on side-quests. Of course, I'm exaggerating a bit, for if we focus only on side-quests, the main story thread might get pretty meak. That's the hardest part - balancing out side-quests and main quest. That's where Fallout 2 failed.

A coda to that is that the cost of failing a quest cannot be so high as to make a player feel cheated when he loses it. The problem with RPGs currently is that there aren't that many missions and they're usually chockfull of either nice goodies, nice experience, or nice plot tidbits. So failure feels like it's not an option for a player who wants to powerplay or get the whole story. Under those circumstances, time-limited quests are just going to encourage recourse to FAQs, I'd imagine.

Click to expand...

I agree, and personally I hate the idea of binary pass/fail systems, and even worse, exclusion circumstances on failure. I thought Prelude to Darkness had a brilliant XP system, where quests are rewarded in varying ways at each step. Not only does it ultimately reward a player for succeeding in some way, even if they ultimately fail, but it also changes completely the perception of success and failure.

Of course, there's also the attitude that maybe you should be doing quests for reasons other than the material gain they provide, but that's a bit too much to ask of many players who are inculcated by the idea that "quest == phat loot."

metallix said:

For instance, some rich noble is offering money for the horn of a giant shadowbeast which lurks in the outskirts of the town. You have heard about it and consider doing that, because the price is nice and, hell, you just wanna kick that beast's ass. However, you get distracted, before you have a chance to kill the beast. When you finally return to this quest, you find that the shadowbeast is gone, and noble has a brand-new horn trophy hanging on his wall. The point is that you don't get instructed to get this horn *before other hunters do*. It goes without saying that you're not the only one bounty hunter in town. That is a fine example of parallelism on a moderate scale, relatively easy to implement.

Click to expand...

while nice in concept, it does not necessarily work out well in practise. such a mechanic would only discourage gamers from engaging in activities (that may result in new quests triggered) while resolving the current quest. (by triggering i mean a game trigger --> may be a conversation with another NPC)

i am sure there're some intelligent ways to resolve this issue, but the effort involved may explain why developers do not attempt more of these type of quests.

Section8 said:

Of course, there's also the attitude that maybe you should be doing quests for reasons other than the material gain they provide, but that's a bit too much to ask of many players who are inculcated by the idea that "quest == phat loot."

Click to expand...

I blame levelling and the inflation of magic items. And I want to play a game where success is its own reward. Possibly with some phat loot if the quest warrants it, because hey, people have been known to do stuff for material gains.

Stark said:

i am sure there're some intelligent ways to resolve this issue, but the effort involved may explain why developers do not attempt more of these type of quests.

Click to expand...

Perhaps the game could let each player only have one active quest at a time, and in order to pick up another the game makes it clear that they'll be forfeiting their current quest due to neglect? If the game offered random quests that would be a nice way of tracking how dependeable the PC is, and failure would then become a valid choice rather than just a very likely reload.

In general I think that the time limit for the main quest in Fallout was a gimmick, and that goes for the ending slides as well. Nice, but neither affected my gaming experience that much, especially since I knew damn well that each quest and NPC was waiting for my PC to show up. A more important aspect was that some quests weren't only about success or failure, they were also about choosing which side to work for.

A major difference between CRPGs and Civ-games is that in Civ-games there's a lot less difference between the 'character' options, which means that everyone plays the equivalence of a fighting mage-thief-whatever, usually with only minor modifications. But I guess that's what I usually try to play when I have the option, since I want to experience as much content as possible. But I wonder if a randomised campaign would be as forgiving for highly specialised characters? Or would there be so many options for succeeding that any type of character could find a way? Wouldn't the game feel like an open cookie jar then, with no 'security' whatsoever? Anyone could just foil the big plan, and there'll be no need to find a particular way to do it? It seems to me as if the 'corporate party' would be the perfect 'character' for such a campaign. One main PC for the flavour, and then a bunch of 'classed' NPCs for the meat and potatoes. That seems to be how any given civilisation is designed in Civ III.

Maybe a game like Lock & Key where an enemy is trying to accomplish something and you have to stop them would be a good idea.