I knew that, but it doesn't really matter in Oblivion since there are no timed quests.

I think he was referring to it being a waste of IRL time to not use fast travel.

I have [censored] to do besides playing video games so it helps that I don't have to experience these 20 minute walking sessions every time I want to do a mission. Plus, its optional and the game is single player so its completely up to you whether or not you use it. If you never used it, you wouldn't even know its there.

Oblivion's is terrible. Teleportation from the middle of the wilderness? At the very least you should have to make it back to the road to fast travel, or possibly clearing more dangerous parts of a road of enemies before fast travel along it is possible. Time compression for tedious things makes perfect sense. Time compression of you casually strolling out of the dangerous wilderness without a care in the world doesn't.

Wait, so you're making the argument that because the clock says you spent several minutes traveling then it's okay? Who cares what the clock says? That has nothing to do with what I was talking about. I was saying that if you choose not to use fast travel the rewards will not reflect the real time effort you put into it.

Thank you! This is the perfect statement to ask for the answer to my (personal) pressing question. (its partly why I made this thread too).

• Oblivion's is terrible. Teleportation from the middle of the wilderness?
  IMO Oblivion's FT is broken for lack of the chance for positive and/or negative events during the trip; and for spell/effect timers not expiring mid trip.
  If this were fixed, I'd have no problem with it otherwise being as designed. Would you illustrate why one should need to be on a road before fast traveling? (I would think that a road would be more dangerous, as bandits would seem more likely watch a road, than some patch of deep wilderness).
  
  
• Time compression for tedious things makes perfect sense. Time compression of you casually strolling out of the dangerous wilderness without a care in the world doesn't.

Fallout New Vegas ~in HC mode, (strangely IMO) does not allow 'fast travel' with a either too much weight, or crippled legs (I'm not sure which, he was crippled and overburdened).
Certainly having a crippled leg is a prime time to employ a 'time compressed' fade out, and let the PC do his limping on his own time. I never understood that decision. I was in that situation at the NCR barracks. The PC had crippled legs and no doctors bag; my only option was to walk back to Doc Mitchel, and I was dumbfounded that the game refused to allow FT, forcing me to watch him limp at ? speed all the way there. Why it did not allow fast travel is a complete mystery to me; Sure, it might have taken him days instead of hours, but why would that matter? :shrug:

I don't see any distinction between avoiding "tedious things" (like watching him limp for 20 minutes), and Casually "fast traveling" the same distance (crippled or not). What's you opinion on it, and why?

And that's where I would say, "Why should it?"
Do you think he (the Quest giver) would care whether your PC walked the whole way, or paid a mage friend to teleport you there in seconds?
All they would care about is a job done, and they'll give you what they offered to pay for a done job. :shrug:

**I would care what the clock says. If the PC travels across the continent and arrived seconds after he left, then I would be in total agreement with the unexplained teleportation argument; and I'd call it silly design.

It's not about what the quest giver thinks. It's what the developer thinks. The developer thinks you're going to spend 5 minutes on the quest and is only going to reward you for those 5 minutes. If the developer thought you would actually make the entire trip on foot there is no way they would reward you with chump change.

Thinks so?
The developers designed that game with no time sensitive quests. you could take that job and play in real time for weeks (ignoring it); travel all over the place, and return to finish it ~and the reward would be the same.

**Also I disagree with the idea that it's not about what the quest giver thinks. The quest giver is the one paying your PC. Consider him the developer playing in character. The quest giver may be paying you all that he has. *There is also the possibility that he is just cheap; There is no guarantee (nor should there be IMO) that a given quest is even worth it ~at all. The Player must decide if its worth it to them; and yes... Some players will decide that its worth it if they don't have to play through the travel time 1:1.

I think you just confused real time with game time.

And I think you also just confused Lemunde's other point.

Me?

Nope, I understand both kinds of time, and his point; I just don't agree with it.

http://images.encyclopediadramatica.com/images/a/ae/Your_Argument_is_invalid_dog.jpg

Really quick, I want to add that I really enjoy the MW system of travel.

And, as I saw it, Lemunde was talking about overarching game design. If you design a system to be able to function without fast travel than that means travel either has improved significance or is more pleasing. Or both. If the developer wants you to, and rewards you for, more than the 5 minutes of time that it takes to complete the quest action that is a more developed world. The point is not to do with the time limits put on quests or the cheapness of quest giver. Those are both the jobs of the writer and a different issue. His point was to do with the idea that actual exploration should be rewarded more in other ways, as fast travel is with saving time. That saved time should cost something in return if only some septims*, chancing upon random quests, or truly interesting landmarks or caves.
*[that is my thought, not necessarily Lemunde's]

He was not saying that an individual quest should give more or less depending on if fast travel was used.

I find it funny how people get so upset at the "unrealness" of FT in games that contain elves, orcs, minotaurs, ogres etc. etc. etc. Not only that, but GROWN up people... :foodndrink:

You seem to have missed the point. It's not that you're fast traveling to have to avoid a longer travel, it's that you're fast traveling to avoid danger. When your legs are crippled, you can't run. It's feasible that in fallout, if you really needed to get somewhere quickly, you could run there and simply run right past any enemies. It's a little unrealistic that you can sprint by people with guns who want to kill you, but it's a videogame. My point is that fast travel should not be a way to circumvent danger. When you have to retreat out of a cave because you ran out of health potions and are on your last legs, you SHOULD be worried about whether or not you can get back to town. In Oblivion, there are wolves, bandits, skeletons, and all other manner of things that can very easily kill you on your way to safety. Fast travel gives you an easy out. Same goes for fallout. The road back to the doctor isn't just a peaceful jaunt. It's filled with radscorpions, raiders, geckos, ants, and powder gangers. Maybe that's not true because on your way to the fort, you killed them all, and that was not 2 hours ago. You say that the roads should be more dangerous. That's somewhat true, although I don't think they compare to what should be a "things that want to kill you" infested wilderness/wasteland. And this is why I said you should have to clear them. I'm not so much for totally random encounters while fast traveling. I think the encounters should make sense. There are only so many bandits in a world like Oblivion. Perhaps a choke point near a bandit camp is often raided, and you have a good chance of being ambushed there. Once you go kill them, that area should be fairly clear, at least for a few in-game weeks. The wilderness is more randomly roving monsters/animals that are hungry or protective, and are dangerous, but not necessarily malicious. When you're talking about the kinds of things that would seek out a road to kill you, like people, or bandits, or assassins who have learned of your plans by spying on you, you should be able to cut off this supply of them. Having 5 men slaughtered by you makes them think twice about going there again. Good ambush points might be more heavily patrolled by guards. Reports of bandits would be actively taken care of by these same guards.

Basically what I'm saying is that fast travel should not be a way to circumvent danger, but there needs to be a system of deciding when there should be danger, and when there shouldn't that's better than random encounters, which I just find annoying.

My first instinct was to be in favor of fast travel, but to be honest, getting a horse wouldve been a lot more satisfying if it Id been walking the whole time. Back on the N64 when you got grown Epona in Ocarina of Time it felt like a major achievement. In Oblivion getting a horse is kinda meh. I would exchange fast travel for varying levels of mounts.

I love oblivion to death, but getting a horse, or getting a house has no real value to me. They need a little depth there.

I know :shrug:
... and I disagree; I have said it several times (and not just in this thread).

I don't perceive it as "time saved", and no one has illustrated how it could be viewed that way.

(Now... any explanation that puts the concept of forcing or requiring realtime traversal as a means of "earning" reward, needs to explain how it is not suggesting some form of gamer maschism; because that's certainly how such would appear to me ~and probably to many others).


I have always fully agreed that Oblivion and Fallout 3/NV's travel is broken, for this very reason. Fallout 1 & 2 didn't have that problem.

Now you're missing the point, as the PC's crippled limbs (or that he can or cannot run) are irrelivant to the issue of time compress travel. If his legs are crippled, then the game clock should show that it took significantly longer for him to arrive. :shrug:

(They'd impress me if that extra time factored into a greater number of potential encounters ~both positive and negative).

We both agree that there should be a risk associated with time compressed travel ~IMO in both series, but if not in TES, then Fallout 4 (or 3 & NV with a patch). However, I would not accept any alternative but random encounters, as they are the most plausible, and I think you will find, that those players that are most outspoken against fast travel, would be positively vehement against a system that informs them they were injured or robbed along the way.

...okay.
You just seemed to reply with things that had little to do with his points.


but, here I am confused. I was referring to real time that has been saved by using the fast travel process, whatever it may be. In the sense of real time saved, that is why it is called "fast travel". My point is that the real time put into walking your character from hither to thither should be encouraged by the world you travel through. World being comprehensive of interactions, gains, environment and discerning that you get, where fast travel would negate these things. Hence encouraging travel over fast travel as part of the overarching game.

I use fast travel, rarely... but sometimes, I take a shortcut.
If I have a bunch of loot stashed in the IC, and want to transfer it to my house, I'll use it.
But if a quest sends me to the other side of the map, I'd rather make the journey there a part of the quest.

I prefer to walk the distance, and harvest the experience points and loot, though.
Also, role playing, I like to wander off my usual route, and look for something to do along the way.

Fast travel is ok, but I think some people abuse it.
All the people that say the game world isn't big enough, or there aren't enough things to do in Oblivion (or Fallout3), are using fast travel too much.

If every time they walk from the IC to Anvil (or from Rivet City to The Republic of Dave), they walked a different route, they would know there is more stuff to do that you can do in one (or ten) play throughs.

I think "fast travel" is an unfortunate misnomer. It implies something it isn't to those that are new to the game; and by the time you're an old hand at it, that's just what its called. :shrug:

I understand what is meant, but I do not think that time saved (playing time, that is) should in any way be noticed or rewarded ~(or penalized!) by the game mechanics, as that is certainly contrary to their intentions (unless they post otherwise ~which they wont).

While I'm all for the richest most interactive world that they can realistically support, I am of the opinion that the game mechanics should be indifferent to the method chosen to traverse it.

**Edit: Its just not practical to try to predict the number of realtime encounters one might have passed along the way (using 'fast travel')... so having a table (or list) of the general areas and assigning a statistical chance of encounters seems a good method (and one that could easily be altered on the fly should the politics of the area change ~as from a quest being begun or ended).

Nothing wrong with that at all. :foodndrink: (Its not even weird)
I'm the same way (except when I choose not to be). I think most players are this way.

I see. Dicey terms.
If I went on record, though, automation should not bring the same rewards as work.


Though I am basing this off of the systems that I have seen. One that I have not gotten into is DF, which is much more comprehensive, and something I would even enjoy more.

No, I'm really not. You can't run, therefor you cannot possibly travel without having to fight enemies since you cannot outrun them. Fast travel should not allow you to avoid fighting. Random encounters are completely stupid because they're always extremely unnatural, and are completely different from what you would encounter had you walked the distance. *Suddenly, you're surrounded!*, whereas when you walk, you can see enemies from a long distance away, and be the one to surprise them, or choose to go around. In a large, open world where anywhere you would "randomly" encounter something is somewhere you could have gone anyway, nothing should be random. There should be persistent events that make sense based on a schedule. If there is a traveling merchant that goes between two cities, he should have a schedule, and if your fast travel path along a road with appropriate time compression would have you cross paths with him, then you should be given to option to stop or not, but nothing about this is random. It's not a 13% chance you'll encounter a merchant along this stretch of highway. I use that as a simple example, but there could be much more complex and interesting things for the game to keep track of that would effect fast travel. Any implementation would be significantly better than random encounters.

Its funny, but in the real world it often does.
In Fallout 3 it does; would you approve of it if FO3 did not increment the PC's skills unless you could pass a quiz proving that you actually read the full contents of the skill book that the PC is supposed to have read? As it is... the PC reads it on his own time (automatically) ~to you it is instantaneous.

So... is "fast travel" any different conceptually?

You are missing the point; We agree. Fast travel is broken in these game. I just don't disapprove of the 'fast travel' concept.
In Fallout 1 & 2 it wasn't broken, and it had plausible random encounters ~done right.

In Fallout 2 the PC's abilities affected the chance of being surrounded, and even could allow the PC to avoid contact if they wished (meaning they saw them first, and went around them).

Why? the world doesn't work like that.

A puzzle might be a bit much. But yes, I would actually like to have seen that.

and to go a bit more in depth, if the skill increase popped up on the last page of the book, it would help all of the illiterate characters that people play also.
----


But here is the core of what I am thinking, automation leaves the character all to their own devices, which is fine, but that also excludes other choices that the player may make in a similar setting. Such as further exploring or helping someone. The results of those choices should not be compensated in an automated system.

What if the player is illiterate? (seriously I mean).

We play these games to play characters that can do what we sometimes cannot ~like casting fireball spells. The PC's are supposed to be skilled, (sometimes experts; experts in something we may know nothing about).

Its a simple example, but I don't see anything wrong with it as is. :shrug:
(I actually do wish that it did just that (at a bare minimum) during fast travel.)

Something others have eluded to, that would make fast travel more interesting, would be the possibility of a random encounter somewhere between point A and point B.

Something like an ambush, where instead of the game reloading at your destination, you reload in the wilderness, surrounded by half a dozen marauders or raiders....

Something you wont be able to just shrug off, and would make the decision to use fast travel have an element of risk ("better save before you do it!" style).

^_^
My first thought would be: impressive

But really, the reason I am supporting the things I am is the follow through provided by the character [player]. Flip to the last page to get the skill up, hobble your character back to the city and you can investigate the ruins to have them marked on your map, or talk to the peasant to pick up a quest, or just witness the landscape. If you automate fast travel these secondary things should not register to your character, because you did not tell them to do those things. If I want my character to steal a book, and not skill-up because they are illiterate, steps would be in place for that.

Does that make sense?

[]
I mentioned Daggerfall, because I hear that the fast travel prompts you when you come into any of these situations which involve more choice. I would love that kind of fast travel.