[Queenslayer]

It's been awhile since I last played TW2, so my memory might be quite scarce, but IIRC there were only one or two (very few at least) "time options" in the game. I can only remember the "Roche or Iorveth" choice, but I was a bit depressed it didn't show up on other "important" locations. E.g. whether or not to kill Henselt and Letho.

I do like I have the time in dialoge to think what I will say, but when it comes to decisions, a time limit is more preferable IMHO. When the choice for Henselt and Letho turned up, I remember sitting there in my coach thinking what is the logical decisions here. Had there been a time limit, I would have probably gone by emotions, and had them both killed. But thanks to there being unlimited time, I found the 'logical' choice to spare them.

Though this is my opinion. Agree or disagree?

[KnightofPhoenix]

In principle, I don't mind. In Alpha Protocol, every single dialogue choice and decision was timed, and I always was logical and pragmatic in my choices.

But I'm not sure it suits TW. In AP, since everything is like this, you sort of get used to it. In isolated events, it may take one by surprise.

But I don't feel strongly either way myself.

[Costin Moroianu]

I personally never pondered on it much. I spared them both in a split second.

Personally I really really like AP for it's timed decisions and CDPR should do it more!

But here's the thing. Alpha Protocol is very character driven rather then story driven unlike the TW2.

[FoggyFishburne]

I'm definitely on board. I agree wholeheartedly. I'm currently playing The Walking Dead (seriously, play it. It's one of the most amazing games I've ever played. That fucking game made me cry) and every discussion or dialogue choice includes a timer, excluding parts where you're gathering information and asking questions. It's a truly amazing mechanic/idea because it forces you to pick instinctively. Pick what your heart desires or else you'll end up regretting it. Whether you're an idealist or a pragmatic, it works and really adds to the tension!

At least add it to very difficult decisions, choices that have impact. That way they'll become that much more important since they have to be done on the fly. When you're sitting there, given all the time in the world, you can just ponder away, figuring out what you truly want to do. On my first playthrough, when given the save Saskia or Triss choices, I sat for maybe 30 minutes thinking: "what's the right thing do!?" If there was a timer forcing me to choose, it'd be a lot more impactfull since I'd have to pick on the fly, going after my gut!

I don't know, just thinking aloud. I really love the timer in Walking Dead, conversations flow so smoothly and each time you make a choice there's that little doubt in your mind, forcing you to reflect on the choice you just made. Sometimes you're less sure about your choice, sometimes more. A compromise would be nice. If Red incorporated more choices regarding shit like: Should I let Letho live or do I fight him? Well anyway, I'm loving the timer thing. It's really interesting how such a small mechanic could make such a profound impact on gameplay and truly immerse you in the game!

[Lurtz_Of_Orthanc]

Timers aren't necessary for EVERYTHING, but more "interrupts" like in Mass Effect and timed key decisions like TWD will make Witcher 3 the ultimate choice-driven experience.

[Costin Moroianu]

Not for everything no, but big decisions yes I think.

[Bloth]

Personally i'd make it toggle-able, i'm a slow reader myself and tend to get lost looking around and mulling over things during conversations, so it catches me by surprise almost every time. Or you could have the person asking the question demand to be answered, like in Human Revolution, it's a fake sense of urgency but quite effective I found.

[Jaykel]

nah, i don't want that. I want to reflect about my answer and sometimes my brain needs more time, in the end you can quick load a savegame just before your decision and the whole "fast choice" option is obsolete.

[Corylea]

I hate time pressure and would much rather be able to think about my choice. Besides, sometimes I leave the game for a few minutes during a conversation, secure in the knowledge that the game won't continue until I've made a reply. I'd hate to come back from the bathroom or the kitchen and find that the game has gone on without me!

It's also true that a lot of people play this game in a language that is NOT their native tongue. Those people need a longer time to read and understand the dialogue and may even need to go consult a dictionary if an unfamiliar word is used. We don't want people to get stuck with a decision they hate, just because they were looking up "jerkin" to see what that is in Lithuanian.

[slimgrin]

I don't think it added much to the game. I prefer to think things over, especially in a game as complex as TW2. And please no interrupts like ME2, those are a terrible idea. You should be focusing on the scene and the dialog, not waiting for a QTE. If they do it again I'd rather it only be used in context, and rarely at that.

[the Fixer]

Jaykel said:

nah, i don't want that. I want to reflect about my answer and sometimes my brain needs more time, in the end you can quick load a savegame just before your decision and the whole "fast choice" option is obsolete. ›››

Well, I suppose that if someone prefered it to be timed, they wouldn't just go and quick-load if they regretted the decision they took instinctively. Personally, I think I'd like it only on some occasions. Sometimes, when you're given different options, you may find a line that you would have never considered, but with plenty of time to ponder on it, you judge it the best one and go with it. But if you'd have had to choose among the same options in five seconds (which, incidentally, is also more realistic), you would have likely followed your gut, and the outcome might have been different, depending on your personality. On the other hand, very often, during some conversations, I already know how I'm going to answer to a character even before I see the options, but when I do, I don't find any suitable one and I have to choose the "least bad". And when it happens in games with a timed response, maybe even in a very short time, the result is total mental chaos and final dissatisfaction. So I'm in a middle area. I believe it would be great in "aut-aut" instances, not so much in more varied or very complex ones.

Blothulfur said:

Personally i'd make it toggle-able, i'm a slow reader myself and tend to get lost looking around and mulling over things during conversations, so it catches me by surprise almost every time. Or you could have the person asking the question demand to be answered, like in Human Revolution, it's a fake sense of urgency but quite effective I found. ›››

I felt the same about the fake sense of urgency, but in the end it just felt very fake and a little annoying as the person I was talking to seemed to think I was an idiot

[the Fixer]

Sorry, double post.

[Costin Moroianu]

Quote

Those people need a longer time to read and understand the dialogue and may even need to go consult a dictionary if an unfamiliar word is used. We don't want people to get stuck with a decision they hate, just because they were looking up "jerkin" to see what that is in Lithuanian.

There is absolutely nothing that stops people from reloading and I am personally not a native english speaker. Besides as Bloth put it there is no reason we can't have it to be something that could be toggled.

slimgrin:

Then you haven't played Alpha Protocol. Conversations feel so much better in that game because of the sense of urgency.

[dragonbird]

I guess I'd like it to depend on context. The sword decision is correctly a fast choice because he WOULD have to make a snap decision. With the Path choice, he has time to think about it. So it should fit in with the storyline.

Stennis and Henselt should have been fast choices.

[▫ Dona ▫]

Blothulfur said:

Personally i'd make it toggle-able, i'm a slow reader myself and tend to get lost looking around and mulling over things during conversations, so it catches me by surprise almost every time. Or you could have the person asking the question demand to be answered, like in Human Revolution, it's a fake sense of urgency but quite effective I found. ›››

All of this. I am not a slow reader, but it took me a few replays to see what exactly the "[Whisper to Triss]" option said in the beginning of Act 1. There wasn't enough time to read all of my options. And yes, I do mind realoading because it defeats the whole point of thinking fast (when you're doing it irl you 'know' all of your options). The sword choice was done well (short, crisp decisions), the Act 1 beginning scene wasn't (don't give me 1.5 second to read three long sentences).

They could indeed learn a thing or two from the way DX:HR handled dialogues.

[M4xw0lf]

God, no.
What Dona said.

[Corylea]

Costin Moroianu said:

I am personally not a native english speaker.

No, but your English is excellent. This is NOT true of everyone who plays the game in that language.

(Actually, anyone who posts here is unusual by definition, since far more people lurk than post. )

Quote

Besides as Bloth put it there is no reason we can't have it to be something that could be toggled.

IF they would do that, that would be fine. But they didn't in TW2, so there's no guarantee that they would do so for TW3.