Gaming

I can't help but read this headline as, "with climate change and the rise of fascism, the real world is ending, but how is this for a distraction: why can't RPGs get the sense of urgency right?"

And like, this is genuinely an article and discussion I'm interested in, so this is not a criticism of anyone or anything other than the ambiguity of language.

I tend to think of "the world is ending" as being terrible writing from the outset. If you're starting from that, you've only yourself to blame.

I don't really think it's a problem at all. It's on the level of game mechanics being taken too seriously like "why does a sword in my backpack weigh enough to slow me down but not a sword in my belt?" or "how come these vegetable merchants are willing to buy random crap I found in a cave?"

Fallout 1 has a hard timer you have to obey before it is too late to do your main objective and you lose the game. That shit stressed me out so much I just didn't continue playing.

I mean the real world is ending atm and all humanity is doing is side quests ...

Honestly, toughest part of Baldur's Gate 3 is recognizing how much there is to do despite the fact that you literally have specific characters haranguing you to move the story forward (I'm looking at you Frog Wife, we'll get to your fucking Creche when I'm ready!), which makes you feel like maybe there's a time limit. First playthrough I missed massive amounts of the game because I felt rushed by the characters in my party.

On the other hand, maybe there does need to be a time limit so the urgency is real? In the original Fallout, on release, you had something like 100 in-game days before The Master found Vault 13 and it was game-over. They later removed this because it was seen as too difficult... but I actually dislike that it got removed. Maybe change how long the player is given, but still, give them something to press that urgency as an actual, real, urgent thing.

I agree with the other user who said it's a writing problem e.g. choosing the immediacy of end of the world plot device. Unless it's done with very specific circumstances, like Overcooked 1 where the first level is the Spaghetti Monster Apocalypse and then you jump back in time through a portal. I think Dragon's Dogma 2 is a good example of this exact problem the article raises though. It's a relatively short game, but there is no end of the world. There are 2 major events, your destiny as the Arisen to fight the dragon that killed you, and the in-world politics of a government and some corrupt individuals working to prevent this event for their own plan.

I mention this game primarily because it uses a mechanic that many completionists tend to dislike - there are "timed" quests. Not all of them, usually ones that make sense to run out of time on (but again, not all of them.) So for example, at one point there is a quest to attend a masquerade ball, which is a permanent main story quest until you choose to attend. This is the exact issue the premise of the article brings up, where time is infinite until you decide to continue.

And yet, at the same time, there are a few quests where you may encounter a random NPC who is asking for help for someone who goes missing, and if too many in game days pass by, well... They die.

Ultimately I had other pacing issues with the story, but I did really enjoy how it goes about "solving" urgency when an in-game world timer exists. I've never been the biggest fan of time-managed items, (for example, raw potato, ripened potato, rotten potato over the course of 1-3 days), but Dragon's Dogma 1 and 2 both did it fairly well since the items that do expire 1) make sense, it's food, and 2) are in fair abundance. It helps solve the hoarding of your items, gives you a little extra money if you sell it as the right phase, and allows for varied item combinations as well (raw+item = curative, ripe+item = stamina, rotten+rotten = oil for lantern or status effect combinations).

I think really the issue just comes down to what is fun gameplay mechanics? Batman: Rise of Sin Tzu for PS2/Gamecube had timed levels, a mechanic that makes sense for a game centered around saving people before they kill hostages. Star Ocean had an in game timer matched to clocks, so the only way to stop the timer was to turn off the game. After (24?) hours, it's game over. Quite frankly... timed mechanics are usually seen as gimmicky and are not very popular - they may have moments of appreciation, but I'm not sure if it's a beloved mechanic.

Which in turn results in, "I have you now Spider-Man! In just 8 hours my bomb will blow New York to high heavens!" And then the player goes to help every child get their balloon back before the main story progresses.

Some games fix this issue by making the player trigger the change they want and bring the fight to the big powerful threat themselves, on their terms.

In fact one of my favorite RPG has the player characters being the ones trying to end the world as they know it.

I do think the extreme example, the old RPG trope of the big bad looming over in the red-tinted sky and being just minutes from firing the world busting laser while you finish your quest list, is rather cringe. Maybe don't invoke this in a game where time is basically irrelevent.

Surprised this article didn't mention Ludonarrative Dissonance, which this seems to be an example of.

This approach is so common in RPGs it's like dwarves with Scottish accents; a better question to ask would be whether there's an RPG that doesn't do it - one that hurries you up instead?

I mean...Dark Souls is the obvious answer, but that's almost a different subgenre of RPG. Dark Souls does have side quests, but they are obscure and often incidental to the main quest. They also skirt this problem by having "time" be a loose concept in the lore - in every game, the world is in the process of slowly ending, in a literal way that fucks up the flow of time.

In Lightning Returns: Final Fantasy XIII, the world is ending, and the 13-day timer is very real. You basically get told "do as much as you can before the world ends" and let loose. So there's urgency AND side questing.

And of course you have the opportunity to spend that time doing things that are completely irrelevant to making progress, like collecting silly outfits and forcing Lightning to wear them so that Hope can laugh at her.

Bruh, it's just a game 🤷‍♂️

It kind of works in Elder Scrolls games. You're typically just some random dude getting roped into stuff you barely understand so it makes sense that you don't have much of a sense of urgency. And the main quest usually has parts where you're encouraged to go do other stuff to build up skills and join factions.

That's why i love Metroid so much.
The world doesn't end until you decide it will.

Does the Outer Wilds solution count?

It seems like it's absolutely possible to solve all of the unrealistic problems that exist in CRPGs. You could have a rational encumbrance system, where you can only have the armor you're wearing, minor supplies in a backpack, and everything else has to go on a pack horse. You could have realistic hit points, where a solid hit from an enemy with a sword meant very rapid death from blood loss or organ damage, hits on armor did nothing, you got physically tired quickly and had to actually rest to feel better (ever done HIIT training?, like that), and when you were exhausted you just collapsed and got stabbed to death. They could have realistic movement speeds, where trying to walk across a kingdom would take a month in real time.

But would it be fun? Would anyone want to play Medieval Minor Nobility Life Simulator?