Should quests be more time sensitive?

Tough one.  I have no issue with quests that have a timer once they are started (as long as not every quest has a timer) - meaning, real world ticking minutes.  That would be fine in small doses.  But I'd want it sign posted in some way (like an hour glass suddenly appearing on screen in the corner and sand filtering down).

Ones like Jack where you have 'X numbers of missions/quests before this one expires' are fine, but again there should be some gentle nudging if you get close.  Like, if you get within three missions of losing that one, a crew/party member piping up with "hey, we better get to Jack soon, boss".  Or something like that.  Nothing that breaks the 'fourth wall', just a reminder that your time for this mission is running out.  But again, I wouldn't want that to be every quest either, or even every third or fourth one.

I'd actually favour something like 'World Events' where a side mission opens up in an area, and if you're around for it, you can do it.  But if you choose not to, it's gone.  However, if you aren't in the area when it triggers (on an in game day/night cycle of some length) then it pops up again next time.

If it was a one-off game that I never planned on playing again, then... I'm fine with a few of those (as long as they don't have actual timers).

On the other hand, if it's a game I plan to play multiple times... that's another story. Then I'm less inclined to having them.

The reason is, I don't want to have to sit there with a "best quest order" checklist to play the game. They just add unwanted linearity.

If you look back on You Tube at the Alpha Demo of DAI they had in 2013, there were toying with the idea of timed quests. This was when Crestwood was under attack by Red Templars. Not only did you have to make a choice whether to defend Crestwood village or try to take the Keep but the whole thing was going to be timed, so, if you opted for the Keep, if you took too long, it could still not work out for you. Meanwhile, the village was massacred. Because of the timed element, I assume that if you opted to help the villagers then there was no chance of then going on to recover the Keep. For some reason, they decided to drop this entire concept but it was probably to do with complexity and cost, so I don't know how likely it is they will resurrect the idea.  I thought it was a pity it wasn't included as I was looking forward to playing it and, of course, having different outcomes did make for replayability.

Of course, we did have a timed element in DAI; on the Templar path. My main gripe with that was that it was difficult to recover items that required you to go off the main path. I didn't even bother looking because I was focused on getting back asap. If they are going to have timed quests, then that should be the sole focus and they should not have any items you have to go looking for on that particular section.

"Choices have consequences", how often have we heard that? We already have a history of either/or: Bhelen or Harrowmont, Mages or Templars (all 3 games), Elves or Werewolves, who to leave in the Fade, what we do with/to our companions. Some of those choices matter less in subsequent games, but at the time... Another way for our choices to have consequences might be good.

If it's a timed quest as in an actual timer, then no. A small puzzle with an actual timer, maybe, but not too many of those either. Otherwise I see a lot of reloading earlier saves and it becomes a drudge and frustration rather than roleplay and fun.

If it's timed based on number of missions/sidequests you do, then I can see it - again, not a lot, but a couple of key points in the game? Sure. Not an either/or scenario but a reduced chance of success. I'll use the Crestwood example mentioned before (I was also disappointed that was cut).
Instead of saving the villagers but not being able to take the Keep or vice versa, I'd rather if you choose option A, you are decreasing the chance for success in option B.
Let's say I choose the villagers. That reduces my chance of taking the Keep by 50%.
Maybe I get to a point where it's not total victory but things are quiet. I can leave for the Keep at that point (hoping that will not just get me the Keep but also save the villagers from future attacks), which reduces the overall chance of saving the villagers to 80%. If I stay with the villagers to the end, I only have a 20% chance of taking the Keep.
On the other hand, if I choose the Keep, then my chances of saving the villagers drops to 75%. I can take the Keep by frontal assault or by stealth and one of those choices drops the villagers' chance of survival to 40%. If I explore too many areas in the Keep, that drops down to 20%.
Now, your choice of party members can move those percentages up or down by 2-10%. By this I mean class, weapons, tactics.

You can't play the game based on 1 or 2 quests, but I think it could be interesting.

Or just take a 'my village is in danger of being wiped out by xxx' scenario. If you go immediately, you have a 90% chance of a perfect ending to that quest. A perfect ending being least amount of lives lost and property destroyed. Any other quests you do or areas you go to reduce your chances of that perfect ending and increase the amount of death and destruction. Ultimately, you could end up with the village's total annihilation.

In any case, there shouldn't be many, and I'm not sure how major they should be. It's an interesting idea, though.

I don’t mind if it makes sense. The possible assassination of an Empress comes to mind. Yet I can do every possible area and side quest and no attempt on her life is made. It made no sense especially with the urgency talked about during the group meeting. During an important event like that I don’t mind so long as it isn’t forced on me often. As someone who played Kingmaker as well, it can absolutely ruin the fun of playing.

I would be ok with it. Imagine the player has a time limit when creating a character? hahaha. After 2 minutes, the screen fades-to-black with whatever the character looked like at that moment. hahaha. Hmmm. I might add that to the wishlist thread. hahaha

Since I enjoy doing speedruns, time sensitive quests wouldn't bother me. To get 100% completion, those quest's might make it tough for that to happen

Since the Grissom mission was mentioned, I wouldn't call that time sensitive. If it's done before curing/sabotaging the genophage, the player can do as many missions as he/she wants without worry. The mission that is time sensitive is the bomb mission. If the player helps the turian platoon, then does the genophage mission, the player can only do one more mission before the bomb goes boom. That mission being the coup. Once done, meet up with little Victus again to disarm the bomb. If player decides to do a different mission, the bomb will go boom. Shepard receives an email from Wreav/Wrex.

If puzzle or race type quest areas are added, sure. But for general gameplay, no thank-you.

Check your pants.

Oh, you said shards. One little letter...

Going by my experiences with how people react to things there will still be many people that would consider that a failure state because they missed out on something.

If it's something that you could turn on before starting a new playthough (for an extra challenge), then sure why not. (However, you can't turn it off afterwards).

That's what I was thinking of. Plus it adds an extra challenge if anyone planned on doing a speed run.

If it's anything like in Pathfinder Kingmaker then no. I don't like timing to be that pressing. I was not impressed when I happily scouted the wilderness and suddenly had "you missed this" messages onscreen. If the storytelling fits in with urging the player to action, then yes.