The sense of urgency and time sensitive events in games
by Kyrah Abattoir · in Game Design and Creative Issues · 09/21/2011 (2:57 pm) · 7 replies
In many games out there that follow a plot line, sometimes you have those events where the game designers insist on a sense of urgency:
-Your girlfriend is bleeding to death and you have to find a first aid kit.
-You just took the sacred idol from the pedestal in an aztec temple and the defence mechanism is flooding the room with san.
-A bomb is about to explode and you have to save the world.
All those events usually are there to get your blood pumping, to give you this feeling of heroism, usually the music changes, in some games you get a big countdown on the screen telling you how much time you haave left to perform the action.
Now i also know that some designers "rig" those events to play on the player's perception that they made it "just in time", like having this stone door come down a hair short from crushing the player, giving him this "woah that was too close!" feeling.
I also know that some games can make those events pretty challenging and i recall how some sections in Metal Gear where deeply frustrating in this regard.
...
And then there is the "other" category. There are a lot of games that prepare you for such a sequence, hectic NPC voiceover, quickening music, ... and the game give you basically all the time on earth to finish the event.
This is becoming more and more common and i know players that end up ignoring those urgency cues nearly systematically because "it's never real".
I mean this character who beg you to quickly give insulin to his brother, there is no way to fail this event, even in a non "game over" way, you can spend an hour dicking around during this "urgent" event, at no time will it come back bite you.
So what do you guys think, timed (reasonable) events, good or bad? and why?
-Your girlfriend is bleeding to death and you have to find a first aid kit.
-You just took the sacred idol from the pedestal in an aztec temple and the defence mechanism is flooding the room with san.
-A bomb is about to explode and you have to save the world.
All those events usually are there to get your blood pumping, to give you this feeling of heroism, usually the music changes, in some games you get a big countdown on the screen telling you how much time you haave left to perform the action.
Now i also know that some designers "rig" those events to play on the player's perception that they made it "just in time", like having this stone door come down a hair short from crushing the player, giving him this "woah that was too close!" feeling.
I also know that some games can make those events pretty challenging and i recall how some sections in Metal Gear where deeply frustrating in this regard.
...
And then there is the "other" category. There are a lot of games that prepare you for such a sequence, hectic NPC voiceover, quickening music, ... and the game give you basically all the time on earth to finish the event.
This is becoming more and more common and i know players that end up ignoring those urgency cues nearly systematically because "it's never real".
I mean this character who beg you to quickly give insulin to his brother, there is no way to fail this event, even in a non "game over" way, you can spend an hour dicking around during this "urgent" event, at no time will it come back bite you.
So what do you guys think, timed (reasonable) events, good or bad? and why?
About the author
3D artist, programmer, game designer, jack of all trades, master of none.
#2
The timing constrains do not have to be tight, it can even be quite forgiving, hell, it could be forgiving to a point that ANY player that reached this part of the game will pass the event with flying colors.
But when a game present me with a fake time sensitive event, i can't help but feel insulted, it's actually an immediate immersion breaker for me.
You say you hate time based failures, and i can agree with you to a point, there is nothing more annoying than being presented with the game over screen over and over as you try to jump through the hoops some sadistic game designer placed there.
I will take for example "Call of Cthulhu: Dark corners of the earth" This game is pretty famous for a specific timed event where your character wakes up in his hotel room, overhearing the villagers that are about to storm in to get him killed. This is the start of one of the craziest timed event i ever played:
-Rush in the next room.
-bolt the communication door shut.
-Push a bookcase away in the second room to access the 3rd room.
-Push a piece of furniture against the main door (broken lock).
-Push a bookcase away to access the window, get to the fie escape.
-Jump to the next building.
-Head through the door and push a clock against it.
-Crouch along the hallway to avoid being shot through the windows.
...
The problem with this timed event was that, even if the pressure was absolutely fantastic and the timing very real, it left you with maybe a second or two of error margin, and this wasn't one of these "just in time" events, I believe that I failed this sequence 10 times or more at various steps.
After the tenth time, the pressure is long gone and it's just annoying.
In this example, the game deliver you a "game over" if you fail this event, but in my RPG example I was more thinking that if you didn't give the NPC his insulin in time, the game would consider you failed this specific event instead of waiting endlessly for you to complete the task. It doesn't necessarily has to lead to a large, budget consuming, new arc in the game's storyline: maybe his brother could just behave differently if you didn't complete the mission (not necessarily in a "i hate you" sense or translating in a penalty).
At the very start of "Fallout: New vegas" during one of the first tutorial quests where you go gecko hunting, there is a farm girl that get assaulted by a little group of geckos, if you simply ignore her as you loot the meat of the geckos you just killed, she will die, but if you rush to save her, you will get a little extra faction bonus with the peoples of goodspring.
Now there is also the opposite kind of game, which is the "dead rising" serie where EVERYTHING is time reliant.
The problem isn't so much that specific events are tied to a specific time in the game, it's actually refreshing to have games like this one that unroll a bit like a movie, where things happen all around the player at a specific time.
But the entire game uses it as a crutch to create replayability (you cannot do everything in the game in a single run, because, even if the game span over the course of 72 hours, the ingame clock is running 12 times faster.
Not only that, but some of the events require a bit of planning to complete them and failing to do so end the game.
One of the most popular trainers for this game is actually a timescale adjuster.
AS for your last question, no I do not hate gamers, hell I'm a gamer myself.
I do consider game design as a form of art, to the same level books and movies and perceived by the general public, and I hate to see it reduced to mere toddler entertainment (nothing wrong with toddler games!), and boring "more of the same" marketing conservationism.
There has to be more than this for the game industry, and we can make better games than the average glitter coated shovelware the AAA industry persist in releasing.
I also like to keep my posts controversial otherwise we wouldn't be having a enriching discussion :)
09/22/2011 (6:00 am)
If the timing is too tight, the player fail over and over and redoing again and again the same timed event destroy the initial sense of urgency.The timing constrains do not have to be tight, it can even be quite forgiving, hell, it could be forgiving to a point that ANY player that reached this part of the game will pass the event with flying colors.
But when a game present me with a fake time sensitive event, i can't help but feel insulted, it's actually an immediate immersion breaker for me.
You say you hate time based failures, and i can agree with you to a point, there is nothing more annoying than being presented with the game over screen over and over as you try to jump through the hoops some sadistic game designer placed there.
I will take for example "Call of Cthulhu: Dark corners of the earth" This game is pretty famous for a specific timed event where your character wakes up in his hotel room, overhearing the villagers that are about to storm in to get him killed. This is the start of one of the craziest timed event i ever played:
-Rush in the next room.
-bolt the communication door shut.
-Push a bookcase away in the second room to access the 3rd room.
-Push a piece of furniture against the main door (broken lock).
-Push a bookcase away to access the window, get to the fie escape.
-Jump to the next building.
-Head through the door and push a clock against it.
-Crouch along the hallway to avoid being shot through the windows.
...
The problem with this timed event was that, even if the pressure was absolutely fantastic and the timing very real, it left you with maybe a second or two of error margin, and this wasn't one of these "just in time" events, I believe that I failed this sequence 10 times or more at various steps.
After the tenth time, the pressure is long gone and it's just annoying.
In this example, the game deliver you a "game over" if you fail this event, but in my RPG example I was more thinking that if you didn't give the NPC his insulin in time, the game would consider you failed this specific event instead of waiting endlessly for you to complete the task. It doesn't necessarily has to lead to a large, budget consuming, new arc in the game's storyline: maybe his brother could just behave differently if you didn't complete the mission (not necessarily in a "i hate you" sense or translating in a penalty).
At the very start of "Fallout: New vegas" during one of the first tutorial quests where you go gecko hunting, there is a farm girl that get assaulted by a little group of geckos, if you simply ignore her as you loot the meat of the geckos you just killed, she will die, but if you rush to save her, you will get a little extra faction bonus with the peoples of goodspring.
Now there is also the opposite kind of game, which is the "dead rising" serie where EVERYTHING is time reliant.
The problem isn't so much that specific events are tied to a specific time in the game, it's actually refreshing to have games like this one that unroll a bit like a movie, where things happen all around the player at a specific time.
But the entire game uses it as a crutch to create replayability (you cannot do everything in the game in a single run, because, even if the game span over the course of 72 hours, the ingame clock is running 12 times faster.
Not only that, but some of the events require a bit of planning to complete them and failing to do so end the game.
One of the most popular trainers for this game is actually a timescale adjuster.
AS for your last question, no I do not hate gamers, hell I'm a gamer myself.
I do consider game design as a form of art, to the same level books and movies and perceived by the general public, and I hate to see it reduced to mere toddler entertainment (nothing wrong with toddler games!), and boring "more of the same" marketing conservationism.
There has to be more than this for the game industry, and we can make better games than the average glitter coated shovelware the AAA industry persist in releasing.
I also like to keep my posts controversial otherwise we wouldn't be having a enriching discussion :)
#3
Timed events are another tool in the tool box for game designers. Like any tool, it can be used well or poorly. I've been playing a lot of Big Fish adventure games and many of the puzzles have timers. They tend to be generous with the time and there is a hint system, so it works well. I think RPGs that have timed missions, rescue the trapped NPC within x time, works well as long as it is one of many varied winning conditions. Surely, games which lack mission variety and are unbalanced quickly become frustrating. Timed events would exacerbate the frustration problem.
09/23/2011 (1:07 pm)
Timed events are another tool in the tool box for game designers. Like any tool, it can be used well or poorly. I've been playing a lot of Big Fish adventure games and many of the puzzles have timers. They tend to be generous with the time and there is a hint system, so it works well. I think RPGs that have timed missions, rescue the trapped NPC within x time, works well as long as it is one of many varied winning conditions. Surely, games which lack mission variety and are unbalanced quickly become frustrating. Timed events would exacerbate the frustration problem.
#4
Take the Call of Cthulu section you mentioned earlier, while I will agree the immense difficultly of that section lead to frustration, the fact that the game required, nay demanded, that you complete that section under such difficult circumstance I think adds to the hectic nature of the event.
But again, you are right in that this can go too far in simply frustrating the player, and I think it's a balance between giving the player the right resources to complete the task, but at the same time, putting them into a situation that tests their skills and ability to think within an unfamiliar situation.
09/23/2011 (6:43 pm)
I can understand your frustration with having timed events lead to pointless repetition as you try to complete their very tightly pretdertmined requirement, and while I do believe that having a point of urgency can be ruined by relying too much on such strict requirements, I do believe such a thing is necessary to some extent for that moment to be truly effective.Take the Call of Cthulu section you mentioned earlier, while I will agree the immense difficultly of that section lead to frustration, the fact that the game required, nay demanded, that you complete that section under such difficult circumstance I think adds to the hectic nature of the event.
But again, you are right in that this can go too far in simply frustrating the player, and I think it's a balance between giving the player the right resources to complete the task, but at the same time, putting them into a situation that tests their skills and ability to think within an unfamiliar situation.
#5
No timer is running, you have all the time in the world, but the combination of the music, and the shaky cam, and sparks and explosions creates a cinematic sense of urgency.
09/30/2011 (11:42 pm)
This thread reminded me of the beginning of Knights of the Old Republic where you are on that ship, and the camera is shaking around and that music is playing.No timer is running, you have all the time in the world, but the combination of the music, and the shaky cam, and sparks and explosions creates a cinematic sense of urgency.
#6
If a designer really wants to make an awesome countdown, they could cater the time to the player's abilities. Depending on what type of game it is, there is usually a way to estimate how long a player will need to get through something based on how they've done throughout the game before that point. If you can find a way to calculate that time, you can set that clock to whatever would be winnable for that player and a lot more intense since you can set it to just within their abilities.
10/03/2011 (2:20 pm)
I love true countdowns as long as they aren't frustratingly difficult. No matter how immersive a game is, most gamers can spot a phony "countdown" and I don't really like them as much myself. Some of the best gaming moments happen with countdowns and they wouldn't have been as great without the true sense of urgency. Think about Resident Evil 2's countdown or as said above, Metal Gear Solid's. Call of Duty 4 had a great countdown sequence at the end. Granted, some countdown sequences are just plain frustrating. Nobody wants to die over and over at the end of a game when things are really intense but if countdowns are done right, they can make for some amazing moments. They don't have to be even remotely difficult, but it helps for them to be there. If a designer really wants to make an awesome countdown, they could cater the time to the player's abilities. Depending on what type of game it is, there is usually a way to estimate how long a player will need to get through something based on how they've done throughout the game before that point. If you can find a way to calculate that time, you can set that clock to whatever would be winnable for that player and a lot more intense since you can set it to just within their abilities.
#7
Unless you never played that sleeper masterpiece, then you are missing my point. The game allowed you to customize various aspects of gameplay:
Combat: easy, medium, hard, insane
Puzzles: as above
Cyberspace: as above - harder levels imposed actual time limits
Game: as above, on hardest level you had 7 hours to complete the game.
The thing that the designers did that sets you up for your sense of urgency on the easier game settings was to have the "big baddie" issue an ultimatum - "Stay out of that room or I will kill you." Then, when you enter the room and do whatever you had to do you had a mess of bad guys waiting outside to kill you. The next time that the "big baddie" said something, you listened. Even though the game was only actually timed on the hardest game setting, you still felt as if the bad guy was watching you and that your actions meant something.
I didn't feel that they brought that as effectively to System Shock 2, but it was there to an extent.
The key, in my mind, is to make sure your timed segments are not going to lose the game for the player. Make them meaningful enough in terms of reward that they want to succeed, but don't make them critical to completion. Have failure cost resources (damage them so they use potions/healthpacks or something similar) and have rewards gain them resources. Then if you later tell them that they will die if they don't rescue the kitten within 20 minutes, they might listen.
10/05/2011 (1:17 pm)
System Shock.Unless you never played that sleeper masterpiece, then you are missing my point. The game allowed you to customize various aspects of gameplay:
Combat: easy, medium, hard, insane
Puzzles: as above
Cyberspace: as above - harder levels imposed actual time limits
Game: as above, on hardest level you had 7 hours to complete the game.
The thing that the designers did that sets you up for your sense of urgency on the easier game settings was to have the "big baddie" issue an ultimatum - "Stay out of that room or I will kill you." Then, when you enter the room and do whatever you had to do you had a mess of bad guys waiting outside to kill you. The next time that the "big baddie" said something, you listened. Even though the game was only actually timed on the hardest game setting, you still felt as if the bad guy was watching you and that your actions meant something.
I didn't feel that they brought that as effectively to System Shock 2, but it was there to an extent.
The key, in my mind, is to make sure your timed segments are not going to lose the game for the player. Make them meaningful enough in terms of reward that they want to succeed, but don't make them critical to completion. Have failure cost resources (damage them so they use potions/healthpacks or something similar) and have rewards gain them resources. Then if you later tell them that they will die if they don't rescue the kitten within 20 minutes, they might listen.
Torque 3D Owner Bloodknight
Bloodknight Studios
Also, players who are immersed in the game will treat the emergency as urgent, which means that you as a game designer need to convey that correctly not just in that part but the whole game.
IMO the best way to solve that particular issue is not to make the player fail (did i mention i avidly abhor games and designers who implement time based fails unless its the core of the game itself) is to start nerfing their rewards after a (reasonable) time, in an RPG thats ridiculously easy to implement, in an FPS or RTS, not so much.
I'm going to add an off topic question? do you hate gamers? almost every post you make here on game design seem to me to be taking a deliberate stance to piss gamers off in every way possible. Its maybe just me and franky I can be ignored, but if its not, then you need to start looking at your posts with a more critical gamer eye :)