RPG General News - The Urgency Problem of RPGs

[HiddenX]

Eurogamer discusses the urgency problem of RPGs:

The world is ending but here's a side quest - will RPGs ever solve their urgency problem?

It's about time.

Why is it that in a role-playing game where the stakes are usually 'the end of the world', the end of the world always has to wait for us to finish our sprawling to-do list first? There's no way you've never encountered this. I came across it most recently in Dragon Age: The Veilguard, which, after a thrilling end to Act One, effectively turned to me, the player, and said, hey why don't you focus on some companion quests now instead, eh? The world was still ending, the danger hadn't diminished or passed in any way, it's just the game needed a pace change and for me to see some of the other cool stuff in it.

[...]

Thanks Couchpotato!

More information.

 

[Jaguar]

Did not read the article, but disagree with the premise. Realism does not always make for fun gameplay. Actually dislike when games have timed quests. It makes gameplay feel frantic, rather than a fun exploration of an open world. There are similar things, like strict encumbrance rules, which, while realistic, tend to make a game more tedious than fun.

 

[guenthar]

I think it would be better to have less games where the story is stopping the world from ending. There are so many other storylines to be told and it does get old to save the world over and over again.

 

[vanedor]

All you need is a good scenario design.

 

[boobaloo]

I think the key to side quests is relevance. If you are a witcher you can do monster hunter and help/kill people because thats what you do. If you are saving the world, then go get an apple in exchange for some XP is just plain stupid. CD Projekt does that very well, most of witcher quests come in the flow of the game, now I´m playing Cyberpunk and there are only a few timed quests but almost all the side quests mesh well with the spirit of the game. There is no end of the world cenario...just high stakes for V (at least until now).

 

[Alrik Fassbauer]

... Which was one of the reasons why I liked Drakensang 2 so much : It was never the world that was to be rescued ... But the royal Crown instead ! Literally ! And that became more of some kind of detective story ... inclusive seeking help for a severely injured mate ...

These days, I prefer more mundane plots. Like with Genshin, where one sibling is searching for the other ... and is healing the world on that way ... This doesn't mean that there are no bitter stories, though ...

 

[wolfgrimdark]

DA4 was one of the only games I have played to directly address that issue, trying to explain a reason why you had to do side stuff and the rest of the world wasn't going to explode. I accept it as a fun aspect over reality myself. I dislike timed stuff a lot. It makes me feel stressed and panicked and makes doing any non-main quest stuff a lot less fun. I don't like having an ax over my head when playing. Some games handle it better than others of course.

It's the same thing with loot though. There were some intense rush missions in DA4 (picking on that as it's the last game I played) and it was Hurry! We don't have much time! While my Rook is back tracking to find that hidden coin purse or spending a half hour trying to reach that chest on some ledge. At the very end, when I no longer had or needed anything, I completely skipped looting and focused on the mission - which was sort of a shame as some of the ending places, like a certain Island, were beautiful and so well designed but you only ever see it once.

In general fun-factor out weighs reality in games for me.

 

[lackblogger]

There are similar things, like strict encumbrance rules, which, while realistic, tend to make a game more tedious than fun.

Consider me summoned

While I agree overly strict and hyper-realistic encumbrance is suggestive of a very tedious game, encumbrance penalties themselves, when handled well in the abstract are something I find extremely enjoyable in my RPGs.

Like everything, the details are a microcosm of the bigger picture, so a good encumbrance rule is usually indicative that the developers have made other aspects of the game well also.

However, having no encumbrance likely means the developers are generally lazy on the details front and have likely cut corners on lots of other details as well and has likely made a shite cRPG. Similar to if a game has too realistic encumbrance it is suggestive that the developer is likely going to be over-pedantic about the other details to the point of tedium.

A good cRPG should be very confident in telling players what they can and can't do with the stats provided. Someone who takes umbridge with how stats are made relevant is likely someone who doesn't really care for cRPGs, deep down.

 

[Arkadia7]

I hate timed quests, period. I like to take my time, leisurely exploring all the places in a game, and wander far off the beaten track, in wilderness areas, and hidden little areas too, and so on. Timed quests and a "sense of urgency" isn't even on my radar and not a concept I would want anyway in my rpgs. If they think this would make for a brilliant new RPG, with the whole main quest being timed, then they can make it, and I will avoid it, lol.

You can't remake the wheel. Some things are standards for a reason, hell -- for very good reasons, indeed. Don't get me started on art, classic art, impressionism, and the all too often pure garbage that they call "modern art". Where a banana taped to a wall is sold for a million bucks and they call it "art" lmao. Anyway....

 

[Vaelith]

As a completionist, I don't like it when story-driven RPGs lock you out of content because you only have X amount of fictional time before plot moves on. That "mechanic" works well in highly replayable games like roguelikes and such, but if a game takes 80+ hours to complete, it doesn't seem very reasonable to force players to take multiple playthroughs to experience all the content.

That said, I can live with it. I just want the game to be fun.

 

[vanedor]

As a completionist, I don't like it when story-driven RPGs lock you out of content because you only have X amount of fictional time before plot moves on. That "mechanic" works well in highly replayable games like roguelikes and such, but if a game takes 80+ hours to complete, it doesn't seem very reasonable to force players to take multiple playthroughs to experience all the content.

Personally, I think that sort of mechanism make decisions meaningful. It means your decisions will actually have impacts.

 

[Kylex]

For me the story of a computer game is a lot like the story of a book.
If I like the book, I never want to run out of pages.
So I don't agree with the article at all. I don't want the game to end, so I will do the main story last.

 

[Vaelith]

Personally, I think that sort of mechanism make decisions meaningful. It means your decisions will actually have impacts.

Yeah, that's a good point. Choice and consequence is one of the best things that good RPGs have.

 

[Philistine]

I prefer my choices to come from role playing rather than lack of time. I hate timed and 'urgent' quests. I want to explore the world at leisure,... which may be why my play time is around double the average.

 

[Maylander]

I love having main quests that are not about saving the world from an imminent threat. The latter premise rarely makes sense, both due to time issues, and practical things like "why are we buying our own gear?". Also, there's the whole issue of scope: If you're facing a full-blown, demonic invasion, defeating them five at time and somehow halting the invasion makes no sense.

A few examples of storylines that do not follow this pattern:

• PS: T is the most obvious one. It's a personal quest, and not timed in any way
• The Origins of DA: O are excellent. Especially Dwarf Noble and Human Noble
• Cyberpunk 2077 is also a more personal quest. There are elements of timing to it, but even then it tends to have a more personal feel to it

There are many others, but you get the idea.

 

[JDR13]

I don't mind a few timed quest thrown in occasionally as long as the timer isn't ridiculously short. It's adds to the excitement if done right.

Where I don't like a timer is in turn-based strategy games. Like those timed missions in XCOM 2 for example.

 

[NFLed]

I very much dislike timed quests or anything which incentivizes me to skip interesting content.

I agree that this is an issue and I like how DA:V and many other recent games approach the issue that there are some other important quests which need to be addressed first, plus it's often unwise to take on the big bad boss without being as strong as reasonably possible.

 

[Vaelith]

I think my issue with urgency is that it almost always feels fabricated and artificial. I love making exclusive choices, but I rather them have a sensible plot hook or a meaningful reason why you could only choose one thing.

Urgency events are usually presented in a format such as "The house is burning, you can only save the child on the second floor, or the old woman in the pantry - you don't have time to save both". Yet, you can spend 3 hours and a half questing just outside of the burning house, or have a full party rest for 8 hours to recover hp and spells and only when you talk to the NPC you have a few minutes left and you can only save one person.

These artificial triggers are what I find offputting. I like to make the choices, and to live with the consequences, but only when they are presented in meaningful way that feels engaging and not artificial.