[jbaietto]

I love the games from White Birds / Benoît Sokal because of the emphasis they place on telling compelling stories above all else.

The Carnival of Immortals story described in the second White Birds installment sounds incredible, and I am really looking forward to it!

However, I'm somewhat distressed to read that the game will feature "several timed sequences representing about 20% of the game's length".

If someone from White Birds ever reads this posting, my request is to please consider making the timed sequences optional.

In my opinion, a story that good should be able to carry itself without the need to use an externally imposed stress factor to add tension.

I know that I don't speak for everyone, but my experience has been that timed sequences detract from a story and decrease the enjoyment of an adventure game.

Having the timing be optional would allow the game to cater to both those who want to take their time with the story, and those who enjoy a stressful challenge along with their stories.

[aries323]

I agree with you completely. Sometimes, timed puzzles can be essential to the story, but most times they are not. Of course, I realize that White Birds
can do whatever they want as it their game(s), but at the same time, I would Benoit Sokal et al. to listen to their fans. Timed sequences in adventure games can be used for many things, I think, mostly it is used in making the game seem longer (I think) to the player.

If you read the interview with Benoit Sokal et al. on the main page of adventuregamers, you will learn that Sokal doesn't want to compromise either on the game's quality nor on the game's length, but instead are cutting down on the places, the gamer will visit. To me, at least, this is a very bad business strategy, since I rather would be visiting more places in a quality 20-30 hour game or so than staying in the same place(s) for lengthy 40-50 hour game. And from what I can read on the adventure sites on the net, many people feel the same way.

edit:
if you want to change anything in White Birds games, my best guess would be this: send them an email, explaining why you don't like timed puzzles...

[ozzie]

I am personally happy to see that they want to execute the story in a more "realistic" fashion, if you can say that with Nikopol...
If there is a danger then you should feel it and it shouldn't be faked.
It always pulls me out of the game when I realize that nothing can happen to me. Or if a character forgot what I previously told to him so that I can repeat the same dialog and give the right answer this time...

This is a story conversion to a game. And as that, it should use the options of this medium. And to convert this story correctly you should simulate danger.

But the designer won't make it a lesson in frustration. When you die you can retry.
If you don't like that this won't be a game for you, I guess.
But there are still many other games who protect you totally, like Lucas Arts perfected it. And it worked in their games, totally! But it doesn't work with every story...

Edit: In my opinion, games shouldn't be a fan service. That's the reason why most of them aren't unique anymore. I don't love the old games from LA because I grew up with them, but because they are totally different from what was released then and is now.
They had a clear vision. So basically, the designers should make the game they want, one that they would want to play.
Of course, they should make it sure that it won't be unfair.
But, in my opinion, a pure adventure game can be with pixelhunting, unlogical puzzles, etc. frustrating enough...

[Kurufinwe]

I don't really understand all the "ooh, timed sequences are evil" outcry. I mean, we're talking about timed sequences, not action sequences. It's just your usual style of adventure gameplay, except that you have to think a tad faster from time to time. So I can't see why that should be rejected on principle. It's all a matter of execution. Maybe the timed sequences in Nikopol will suck and will be nothing more than a cheap trick to increase the game's length. And maybe they'll work great and will be vital to conveying the urgency of certain parts of the story. I don't know -- and neither do you. But until we actually do know how they're executed, I don't see the need to Already Hate This Game. And, as ozzie said, if your adventure games must absolutely unfold at a leisurely pace, then skip this one -- that won't be the end of the world.

Originally Posted by aries323

If you read the interview with Benoit Sokal et al. on the main page of adventuregamers, you will learn that Sokal doesn't want to compromise either on the game's quality nor on the game's length, but instead are cutting down on the places, the gamer will visit. To me, at least, this is a very bad business strategy, since I rather would be visiting more places in a quality 20-30 hour game or so than staying in the same place(s) for lengthy 40-50 hour game. And from what I can read on the adventure sites on the net, many people feel the same way.

I'm afraid you've misunderstood what Michel Bams said. He wasn't referring to a general design philosophy, but specifically to Sinking Island. That's a very particular case: it's a whodunnit, a style that lends itself very well to a limited space (cf. many of Agatha Christie's books). Obviously, if they were doing a Myst-style game, I'd rather they cut down on the plot and number of characters but added more original and beautiful locations to explore. But for a whodunnit, I'd rather have more suspects and more playtime to discover their secrets and explore the plot twists than have more locations to explore.

Also, you seem to be implying that making a game longer just means adding more random and boring puzzles. I don't think that'll be the case with Sinking Island, whose gameplay is not really focussed on standard inventory puzzles anyway (more on this in my upcoming preview of the game). In that particular case, more playtime means more suspects and more plot twists. Which is a good thing in my book for a Christie-like whodunnit. But for a different game, I'm sure they'll use their (tight) budget differently, and cut corners elsewhere (for instance by using a first-person perspective in Nikopol).

[AprilLives]

Originally Posted by jbaietto

However, I'm somewhat distressed to read that the game will feature "several timed sequences representing about 20% of the game's length".

My first reaction to "several" timed sequences is ugh ... it's a game filler that limits the mystery and cheapens the game. AND substituting this method for a wider world could result in a game that is boxed in and boring.

But although 20% seems like a lot, these could be just short features ... as in a safecracking number puzzle that would be too easy were it not timed. I would rather see a clever puzzle than a cheap trick, though.

After all the blood, sweat and tears to create a game, developers shoot themselves in the foot when they take the easy way out or cut corners on any key aspect. It’s how a potentially great game turns into just another mediocre experience.

[ozzie]

I don't understand why you think of timed sequences as a cheap trick.
When I play the game, I want to be immersed in its universe, in the story.
And with this, I want to feel the urgency that might exist in dangerous situations.

Potentially, it could be a bad thing, yes, and as cheap as microscopic small item you need to pick up, a puzzle which makes no sense or something which you need to do, but have no hint that you should...

In my opinion the typical adventure "syndromes" are more annoying than timed sequences.

Of course, I hope that it will be at least clear when you have to do something fast and it that it makes sense in the situation.
But I guess it will. Syberia and Paradise has no timed sequences afaik, so I think that they will only put them in because the story requires it.

[RichardI]

I too would like to see timed sequences optional. I don't think they cheapen the game, I just prefer to take my time and be relaxed when I play an adventure game. However, I would still buy the game. Save, save, save.

Rich

[renna]

I think the real reason people don't like time sequences is because of the anxiety they cause the people playing the games especially us older people.

[AprilLives]

Originally Posted by ozzie

I don't understand why you think of timed sequences as a cheap trick.
When I play the game, I want to be immersed in its universe, in the story.
And with this, I want to feel the urgency that might exist in dangerous situations.

Urgency is good. But when timing elements are solely there to prolong a game and avoid widening the world and/or adventure, it can be a cheap trick to lower cost and minimize the hard work needed to create a great game.

However, we don’t know yet about this game … time will tell.

[Crapstorm]

So far, every timed sequence that I have experienced in an adventure game has been annoying. A clever writer can create anxiety without actually turning on a timer. Somehow, novelists pull this off. So can adventure game developers.

[ozzie]

Originally Posted by Crapstorm

So far, every timed sequence that I have experienced in an adventure game has been annoying. A clever writer can create anxiety without actually turning on a timer. Somehow, novelists pull this off. So can adventure game developers.

I think of KQVI as an example for good timed sequences.
And since games are interactive experiences you can't compare it to novels, which you just experience passively.

Originally Posted by renna

I think the real reason people don't like time sequences is because of the anxiety they cause the people playing the games especially us older people.

Lol.
It would be interesting to know what the average age of an adventure gamer is...

[aries323]

The only timed sequence that I didn't find annoying in an adventure game is found in Zork: Nemesis.

Spoiler:

It featured a timed sequence when you needed to disarm a bomb.

It was crucial to the story, and very well done.

Timed sequences in other games - not so much.

[tsa]

Recently I played the demo of Voyage. I found myself locked inside a tin can on my way to the moon, and running out of oxygen. I died many times trying to find out how to get more oxygen, but I always got a new chance without having to do anything. Also, the things I did besides looking for oxygen were saved, so I didn't have to do them again. That was a very good way to implement timed sequences and not be annoying. If White Birds make something like that I think many people will be complaining just a little instead of a lot