Is there a way to maintain a sense of urgency in open world games?

[StaceyPowers]

I love open worlds, but I feel one of the things that is usually lost when playing them is a sense of “urgency”. Linear games keep us moving forward; there is often a rising sense of urgency built into the pacing. But open world games seem to lack this. Is there a way to embed that sense of dire importance/urgency into an open world format?

[Clasher]

Personally, i feel every genre of video games were designed to suit a particular purpose and give a different kind of feeling.

You don't expect to play a fast car racer game or adventure game and get the same kind of feeling you would get when playing a soul game or even a survival horror game.

That's just how it all works, open world games are the way it is you just have to enjoy it that way.

[Heatman]

It's what open world is all about, and that can never change because when it does changes, it's no longer an open world game. The uniqueness of each game and its gameplay set it apart to be what it is and it's why I wouldn't expect anything less from open world games the way they are designed. 

[Withywarlock]

It's been done before several times from Fallout: A Post-Nuclear Roleplaying Game to The Witcher III: Wild Hunt, it's just that many people don't like the pressure or worry that their content has an expiry date. The first game that exposed me to this was Baldur's Gate: Enhanced Edition, where quest text simply told you that quests had urgency; companions would remind you to get your arse in gear or they'd do things themselves; your journal might pop up to remind you you ought to hurry up. The problem with that for me was that I'd look up wikis to see if content was time-sensitive, and if it was I'd crack on with it... by reading a walkthrough.

If ever you want to see good open world game design look no further than your average D&D game. The world does not wait on the players to pick up static quests from NPCs standing outside houses, while the baddies sit in a tiered dungeon. Ravenloft is one of the earliest adventures to emphasise this (later re-vamped, no pun intended, in 5E's Curse of Strahd). Its main villain, the vampire Count Strahd von Zarovich, will move from zone to zone to complete his various goals and hinder the players by taking out key NPCs and secreting away/destroying artefacts that will aid in the final battle. Players can come across him at any moment, and while he may taunt them and drain resources for petty amusement, you never know when the next battle will be the final one.

This is not a problem of open-world game design, even if I do think by their very nature are worse at creating a coherent and consistently-paced experience, but simply the market and developers preferring to have players take their time and not miss out on any content.

[Kane99]

Give us a time limit that we have to complete the game in a certain period of time. Kinda like how Dead Rising had a time limit. I don't like time limits of any kind in games though. 

I noticed that some games, like RDR2 for example, if you're taking too long during a mission, your posse will complain and ask what's going on. I noticed it happen when I try to loot people and I like to loot everyone lol. But yeah. I don't think I want to be rushed in games. But I get why some games will try to rush you. 

[Heatman]

19 hours ago, Kane99 said:

Give us a time limit that we have to complete the game in a certain period of time. Kinda like how Dead Rising had a time limit. I don't like time limits of any kind in games though. 

I noticed that some games, like RDR2 for example, if you're taking too long during a mission, your posse will complain and ask what's going on. I noticed it happen when I try to loot people and I like to loot everyone lol. But yeah. I don't think I want to be rushed in games. But I get why some games will try to rush you. 

It's just like what you experience in some racing games that have time attack modes in some races. You have to complete the race within a specified time limit otherwise you will lose the race. 

Another games where you have such time limit I played is Chernobylite which is a science fiction survival game. If you spend too much time exploring the map, you would have to deal with a mysterious Black Stalker that would appear from no where and chase you relentlessly. 

[Yaramaki]

It would add a lot more decision making if the world in a open world game wasn't build around your character, like when you get mission to save somebody, you should have x amount of time to do it before that character gets killed or relocated or hell why not even join the kidnappers . Same with haveing to intercept something like a convey should have x amount of time when the convoy reaches it's destination and you fail the mission. 

In games like Kingdom come deliverance you could miss quite a few quests that way, because they show up on the map and if you don't accept them when they become avaible and do them in timely matter you could fail. Like one quest is about helping an executioner but you have to complete it within a week because he can stall the execution for maximum a week, another quest i can remember is where you have to find a remedy for a sick village and if you don't do it in time possible everybody can die and you fail the quest. Great game btw.

To get back to @StaceyPowers question if they add in a sense of urgency in open world games imo it would add a lot more realism into the game knowing that world isen't build around the main character and side characters go on about their ways or could have done things completly different, needless to say it would encourage a second or multiple playtroughs knowing you have missed a bunch stuff into the game, i also feel like you could add in morale system more effective this way like if you fail a bunch of quests you're no longer welcome in a certain town or village or maybe even better if you fail to reach a town in a certain time frame that's been plagued by sickness all people could die and the entire town could be a ghost town because you diden't make it in time, leaving you out of a bunch of side quests that way. 

Edited July 14, 2022 by Yaramaki

[StaceyPowers]

6 hours ago, Yaramaki said:

To get back to @StaceyPowers question if they add in a sense of urgency in open world games imo it would add a lot more realism into the game knowing that world isen't build around the main character and side characters go on about their ways or could have done things completly different, needless to say it would encourage a second or multiple playtroughs knowing you have missed a bunch stuff into the game, i also feel like you could add in morale system more effective this way like if you fail a bunch of quests you're no longer welcome in a certain town or village or maybe even better if you fail to reach a town in a certain time frame that's been plagued by sickness all people could die and the entire town could be a ghost town because you diden't make it in time, leaving you out of a bunch of side quests that way. 

These are great ideas, and more what I was looking for. "Urgency" may not have been the right word, but I don't know what is. I detest time limits in games, but the linear games that give me a sense of "urgency" do not have time limits or rush the gamer either. It's more just a sense that something important is going on, the stakes are high, and I desire to resolve a situation for the sake of the characters. Even with no time limits, things feel very present, focused, in the moment. That is what is often missing for me in open worlds. 

[Kane99]

7 hours ago, Heatman said:

It's just like what you experience in some racing games that have time attack modes in some races. You have to complete the race within a specified time limit otherwise you will lose the race. 

Another games where you have such time limit I played is Chernobylite which is a science fiction survival game. If you spend too much time exploring the map, you would have to deal with a mysterious Black Stalker that would appear from no where and chase you relentlessly. 

Yeah, which is why I never got into games where I was timed. I played Driver 1 and 2 and I could do that time limit, but when it comes to anything else, I'd prefer to play at my own pace without a time limit or timer in my face. 

Hmm, I'll have to check that one out. I'm sometimes slow when I play, so I can see myself freaking out to this. lol

[Heatman]

1 hour ago, Kane99 said:

Yeah, which is why I never got into games where I was timed. I played Driver 1 and 2 and I could do that time limit, but when it comes to anything else, I'd prefer to play at my own pace without a time limit or timer in my face. 

Hmm, I'll have to check that one out. I'm sometimes slow when I play, so I can see myself freaking out to this. lol

The time attack mode and limits in games they come with pushes you to rush play the game and you have no other option but to do it unless you don't want to complete the game. 

To some games, it's fun and very thrilling but some, it burns them out too quickly and they lose interest in the game fast. 

[Kane99]

1 hour ago, Heatman said:

The time attack mode and limits in games they come with pushes you to rush play the game and you have no other option but to do it unless you don't want to complete the game. 

To some games, it's fun and very thrilling but some, it burns them out too quickly and they lose interest in the game fast. 

True, but I don't like to rush through games, even ones that are meant to be rushed through. Sure I will rush through some games, but most of the time I like to chill out and play slowly. I hate rushing and being forced to finish things fast. I like to explore, see the world, and if they made me rush in RDR2, I wouldn't enjoy my time with it probably. 

[Heatman]

8 hours ago, Kane99 said:

True, but I don't like to rush through games, even ones that are meant to be rushed through. Sure I will rush through some games, but most of the time I like to chill out and play slowly. I hate rushing and being forced to finish things fast. I like to explore, see the world, and if they made me rush in RDR2, I wouldn't enjoy my time with it probably. 

A good number of gamers don't like it when they are being forced to rush play their games with the game's system doing that to them unless they want to do it themselves. It's not fun when you rush any game because you won't have enough time to relax and explore everything that's there to be explored. 

[killamch89]

On 7/9/2022 at 3:08 PM, Clasher said:

Personally, i feel every genre of video games were designed to suit a particular purpose and give a different kind of feeling.

You don't expect to play a fast car racer game or adventure game and get the same kind of feeling you would get when playing a soul game or even a survival horror game.

That's just how it all works, open world games are the way it is you just have to enjoy it that way.

Very valid answer. In Skyrim, there's a mod that allows Alduin to destroy Tamriel within a certain period of time unless you defeat him before that and that gives you the impetus to finish the main story.

[Clasher]

1 hour ago, killamch89 said:

Very valid answer. In Skyrim, there's a mod that allows Alduin to destroy Tamriel within a certain period of time unless you defeat him before that and that gives you the impetus to finish the main story.

I haven't played skyrim but I have played no man's sky, grand theft auto V , red dead redemption amongst other open world games and I feel they are just okay the way they are.

[Shagger]

I think open world games do this better when the story and overall progression is more liner, like GTA, Horizon: Zero Dawn/Forbidden West and some of the AC games. Bethesda open worlds, like The Elder Scrolls and Fallout, as much as I love them, do not do this well at all because every story and side story goes on hold until you get back to them, amidst what are often quite immediate and desperate scenarios. Like there is something that story-wise need addressed immediately, but you can hold it off literally for weeks in game doing nothing to address it and it makes no difference. Obviously, that's not the game's fault, it wouldn't be fair to penalise the player for doing one thing instead of another, but cleaver writing can round this problem.

 

This is one of the things I felt HZD/FW did especially well. You hit a checkpoint in a side mission, and there was only so much urge to get to the next step. It's difficult to explain, but it was very subtle and very clever. The games also gently encouraged the side quest to played in a certain order, especially in the earlier parts of the game. It made sense to both players with a completionist and more direct play style.

Edited July 16, 2022 by Shagger