- Does anyone know if there are Timed missions in DaI like in Dead rising 2. I hope there isn't but anyone know. If they did something like redcliffe mission if you leave the area it's doom I feel I would be fine with that but if the mission is like I have to get to that area or everyone is going to die [like dead rising 2] feel like it would ruin my exp. Though if I can take my time traveling to said area then the timer starts kicking down not sure how I will feel about it. Any thoughts? VampireBlood03 (talk) 02:06, September 17, 2014 (UTC)
Oh God, I hope there aren't timed stuff like that. I don't mind it being timed once I get there, or once I start a specific event, but if things are timed for the entire game, it would the experience for me. I'd feel rushed, not as much time to explore. The thing about your keeps being attacked is ok, because then I'm forced into a decision, save the village, or the keep. That makes sense. But if it's timed in the sort of Zelda: Majora's Mask, I'm not sure how many runthroughs I'll do.--Dylca1218 (talk) 03:20, September 17, 2014 (UTC)
I doubt it. Though based on what was revealed of the war table, there are certain tasks that require time to be invested wisely. Like, a certain mission will take x weeks and x days to complete before you can use that adviser again. Believe it! (talk) 03:30, September 17, 2014 (UTC)
- AC: Blag Flag is like that i dont mind it, makes things more real but if its like the earlier Fallout games you have x amount of years/days to compleate game or you fail...then yes itd be ruined for me too. Hopefully timed missions are like in ME3 must be done before starting/compleating other missions.
Blitzbear93 (talk) 11:41, September 17, 2014 (UTC)Blitzbear93
I might be wrong but I think that some of the war table-missions have some sort of time-limit that you must send an agent or do it yourself within a certain time-limit and like Dylca1218 mentioned above there is at least one mission where you have a time-limit to save the village and/or the keep. Caspoi (talk) 15:16, September 17, 2014 (UTC)
Why is everybody against time limits? The "everybody is waiting for the hero" thing is boring. In DA:O it would have been great to have consequences for the order of quests we choose. For example, if you seek for the dalish help last, they are weakened and the werewolves are more numerous. If broken circle is the last quest, Irving would be an abomination and the templars are the only option as ally, and you have more demons to face (but also templars fighting with you to do the annulment). If Orzammar is last, Bhelen is king and the dwarven army is weakened and divided. If Redclif is last, the village is gone and the demon would be so deeply fused with Connor that to kill one you have to kill the other too. The game would change little, you still have to look for Branka, or help/kill the weakened elves or secure the Tower. There are so much opportunities with time limits, and the game would be more "realistic" and challeging, with lots of difficult decisions, like if the dalish are weakened, then perhaps recruting the werevoles is a better choice.--Damx (talk) 10:57, September 18, 2014 (UTC)
I agree with you Damx about some of the missions in DA:O being more interesting if the different areas changes over time. like the Redcliff mission when you decide what to do with Connor. Most playthroughs I go to the Circle for help (and sometimes have to go through the Broken circle mission because I forgot to do that before hand T_T). It would have been more interesting if you had to re-fight some of the monsters in the castle or Connor ran away into the village and having to find him (especially if you went on another mission) instead of having Connor just stand there. I wouldn't even mind timed missions when you get to the area. What I wouldn't like to see is missions getting failed or blocked off because you didn't get to area X fast enough since you were on the other side of the continent!-- DhampireHEK (talk) 1:57, September 18, 2014 (UTC)
- It depends on the mission if you ask me, if there is going to be a big battle I would find it ludicrous that the enemy would sit and wait nicely for you to come (and when we are on the subject of battles I really hope that there are going to be battles that you can win or lose depending on how good you are at fighting and strategizing because in most rpgs it is generally a scripted victory or defeat and the closest thing is you dying, which automatically loads an earlier game and resets everything) but back on the subject I would not want that to be too common as it would stress you a lot and also limit your possibility to explore. I agree with Damx though that was really odd that all the missions (with the possible exception of Orzammar) give a great impact of your need to hurry but everyone can be delayed for a near infinite amount of time, I am not saying that putting a time-limit on them would have been better but it is rather odd how visiting Redcliff and then leaving for one day would spell instant death for the villagers but simply not speaking to the watchman allows the village to hold out for half a year (approximately if it is the last mission you do. Caspoi (talk) 17:19, September 18, 2014 (UTC)
- like if you do Liara last she goes crazy?—Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])
i remember a while ago crestwood was being attacked and you had a crestwood fortress lifebar so that could be considered a timer. but the inquisitor did take his sweet time and there was still plenty of time so i doubt they will ever make you rush anything, i hate timers i always do everything wrong with the stress of the timer!—Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])