Combat system

[Inferno.]

c) Action rpg hybrid even on base level, mix of round based/turn based/real time/etc ( Alpha Protocol, Mass Effect I, Morrowind, Witcher I, etc)...this has been done already and results are crystal clear: ALL devs who did this moved away from this concept due to ( very) negative player reception.
d) Real time action where rpg mechanics dictate effectiveness and variety of builds/mechanics, while gameplay would be still be based on the same rules as with all action games. Imo, this is so far best compromise between player skill and meaningful character building ( Dark Souls, Mount and Blade...).

Negative reception was mostly due to combat mechanics being unpolished clunky mess, I dont thing people were against the idea.

Dark Souls and Mount and Blade are bad examples, skills in this games are literally more health, more damage, more stamina etc. Fighting as lvl 1 in Dark Souls does not feel different to fighting as lvl 30. This games are action games that add some RPG mechanics to spice things up.(combat wise at least, mount and blade has more things going for it of course).

Why not do something Bloodlines and Gothic did?

In Bloodlines you still aim and shoot in real-time, but good luck hiting anything with 1 skill.

Gothic was really cool, as you become more skilled at combat, your animations would change, your swings would be faster and your combos would become more fluid. You could really feel like you are turning from peasent that wields sword like a stick to mighty swordmaster.

You could still cheese and defeat enemys that are more powerfull than you, but stats always felt important.

 

[Zagor-Te-Nay]

Negative reception was mostly due to combat mechanics being unpolished clunky mess, I dont thing people were against the idea.

"Clunkiness" exactly comes from incoherency between different action/rpg gameplay systems in those games...one moment in control of your characters action, in other instances game is overriding it.

Dark Souls and Mount and Blade are bad examples, skills in this games are literally more health, more damage, more stamina etc. Fighting as lvl 1 in Dark Souls does not feel different to fighting as lvl 30. This games are action games that add some RPG mechanics to spice things up.(combat wise at least, mount and blade has more things going for it of course).

Souls is examplar of using stats to affect weapon builds and some basic player actions...it's more a great customization weapon build system, than of strong rpg progression. But similar thing could be used here, to far greater degree with Bodytype and Reflexes( or if they use different stats).
Disagree about M&B, skills are gated by stats, but have visible impact on your character's physical prowess...basic speed, reflex draw, blocking angle, acceleration/deceleration, party, etc.
They could still improve a lot on this, but so far are best examples of rpg mechanics and action gameplay working well.

Gothic was really cool, as you become more skilled at combat, your animations would change, your swings would be faster and your combos would become more fluid. You could really feel like you are turning from peasent that wields sword like a stick to mighty swordmaster.
You could still cheese and defeat enemys that are more powerfull than you, but stats always felt important.

That was the best feature of Gothics, but it had only two melee weapon types, Cyberpunk has much more. It's stats/skill system was poor and would not work in non-level system (esentially, +bonus to hit damage/chance to score a critical hit that applies stat bonus. For an open world game, it feinted "difficulty" behind absurd damage resistances...similar to Division, where someone of higher level can take several shotgun blasts to his face)

For melee&gun, system I'd go with fast, precise to the point controls/animations, player easily able to switch between different playstyles/weapon types. Basic light/heavy attack combos for each weapon type, ability to cancel animations ( necessary when dealing with multiple enemies), unique abilities/attacks for each weapon type ( more tactical purpose, instead of simple DPS difference), no choreographic/soft lock on system like in Arkham/Sleeping Dogs( would requires massive amount of animation work across multiple weapon types, designed for a single playstyle/ heavily restricting combat/less engaging in the long run) and no directional attacks( this is great, but entirely designed for 1v1 duelling and would slow it to a crawl here).

Style I think should be direct and also fairly brutal...no dancing around like a ballerina in Russian cabaret. Make player feel like every shot, every punch matters.
Last of Us really did this well...it "felt" like people were desperately fighting for survival and were not holding back.

 

[Sardukhar]

Why not do something Bloodlines and Gothic did?

In Bloodlines you still aim and shoot in real-time, but good luck hiting anything with 1 skill..

I'm not against this at all. This system plus an adjustable Combat Difficulty that is -not- just more damage soak should make the game enjoyable to the most people. Now, this part is really important - Cyberpunk 2020 lets you have very high combat skills right from the get go if you want and that would take the crosshair and inaccuracy issues that many real-time players hate, right off the table for them. Of course, they would lack in other areas, at least initially, but that's the price you pay.

This would have to be made very clear to new players, though. IF you build a character that is crappy at shooting, stabbing and kicking things, expect to be terrible at those things. The opposite is true.

Now as to a skill tree for neato abilities, I still feel that most of that (faster reload, reduced penalties to moving and shooting) should happen as you increase the skill or be choices (dual weapon wielding, called shots) available to all at penalties that said skills will eventually reduce.

"Clunkiness" exactly comes from incoherency between different action/rpg gameplay systems in those games...one moment in control of your characters action, in other instances game is overriding it.

Yeah, thing is I found Dark Souls very clunky. Witcher 2 clunki-esh, albeit not as annoying as DS. So I disagree with your assessment here. For me clunky is very much a product of how I expect my character to move and hit and how he does. Witcher 3 and Gothic were pretty slick, Dark Souls and Witcher 2 were not, Skyrim and Oblivion were adequately responsive but still really terrible for melee.

Style I think should be direct and also fairly brutal...no dancing around like a ballerina in Russian cabaret. Make player feel like every shot, every punch matters.
Last of Us really did this well...it "felt" like people were desperately fighting for survival and were not holding back.

Absolutely. This sort of thing, this viscerality, should be a major goal.

 

[Meccanical]

The Last of Us is a good point of reference, combat felt "grounded" at least from a visual stand point.

On higher difficulties there was quite a bit of tension as well. I wish they never included the "listening mode",although I understand why they did.

 

[Calistarius]

A quote and only one word?? I'm impressed, Cali.

Heh... even I do at times shut up, or manage to be short in my answers, online.

And why "online" is said there is because in real life I tend to not talk a lot at all... especially if it is small talk, I have close to nothing to say when it comes to small talk... neither do I have much to say about anything which does not interest me... also the more people around the less I tend to say as well. Unless it is about something I like, then I can get a bit babbly with it. which is why I think I write so much online... because the places I tend to be, the things I read/watch/listen to and/or write here online is almost always about things I like, or like-adjacent. XD

 

[Sardukhar]

Words

Yeah,I gotta tell you, Cal, I have the sense there are some great ideas in your posts, but mostly I skim. Busy life, you know. Lot of ponies to hand out.

 

[Zagor-Te-Nay]

There's plenty of opportunities to all kinds of things if some mind is put to the task. You cite a bunch of games as examples of how not to do things, but those games (the ones that weren't the last of their series) never got the evolution that would've finetune their design, they simply got outright turned into something else - and as such, they are simply the products of their own time that are not really all that viable examples in this dicussion without given a bit of thought on how they could've evolved. I mean, nobody wants a game that is like Morrowind to the letter -- but think about if you combined Morrowind and Witcher 1, what could that be like, and include the thought process of "how to make that play in interesting ways" and exclude the defeatist mentality that assumes nothing can be done

Well, I was talking about combining rpg/real time action in gameplay on the base level...in the end, it comes down to four variations, there are no infinite possibilities here. It goes without saying we want CDPR to innovate something new here, regardless.

My problem is that you seem to assume CDPRs intended audience is Call of Duty or Overwatch players not RPGers. Might it be they'll let other companies create yet another COD clone and do what they've done so successfully in the past, target RPG fans

They're putting in a LOT of $/manpower into this, blindly ignoring demands of the "market" and simply going by idealism alone, would be pure insanity (and ( very) likely kill the series right at the start).
Biggest challenge here will be designing complex rpg system that flows well with real time action gameplay and presenting it so it will feel intuitive and easy to jump into by your average player.

 

[Zagor-Te-Nay]

Yeah, thing is I found Dark Souls very clunky. Witcher 2 clunki-esh, albeit not as annoying as DS. So I disagree with your assessment here. For me clunky is very much a product of how I expect my character to move and hit and how he does. Witcher 3 and Gothic were pretty slick, Dark Souls and Witcher 2 were not, Skyrim and Oblivion were adequately responsive but still really terrible for mel

Well, "clunky" is an odd word that gets thrown too often. I think older systems like with Morrowind worked exactly as intended, a lot of people simply did not like how they mixed with real time action.

It can mean a lot of things in general.

Clunky as in Animations can not be cancelled...this is not bad design, it can add a more realistic sense of weight and more to immediate planning your actions beforehand( instead of simple reflex). In the image, you can see Joel is putting everything he's got in the swing, enough that his whole body is pulled by it.
But this does not work so well with hectic, very fast paced action, or more "chaotic" style of combat...one man vs small army who all attack you at the same time.
When it comes to Combat UI, it has to feel simple to use, without disrupting flow of gameplay with inventory rummaging. Slow time Radial UI worked well for it in Witcher, but no hotkey sign casting was a miss. Here, it can can depend on how much they'll allow resource management...I'd like to see some believable restrictions for Cyberpunk ( like someone said before, E.Y.E had a pretty good system) so you have to weigh your options if conflict is really worth it, in the long run.
I think biggest problem was targeting system...something about it felt like there was a split of a second lag, for both player and enemies, when rapidly changing direction, similar when targeting loot. This is something they'll need to redesign, from ground up. These things can have a very negative impact for something both sandbox and shooter.

Souls are definitely the most "clunkiest" games I've played though...from input delays, UI, animations, switching weapons, targeting systems, or even simple looting.

 

[Calistarius]

Yeah,I gotta tell you, Cal, I have the sense there are some great ideas in your posts, but mostly I skim. Busy life, you know. Lot of ponies to hand out.

*nods* That is something which I compleatly understand. Even I tend to facepalm at the size of my posts, and that's even after I have spent time on trying to reduce the sheer size of all of them, and spell check, and constantly re-reading the entire thing as well untill I feel I am "done". And I do litterally mean ALL of them here... a process which can take a, to several, hours per post if they are big enough. I often spend more time on trying to fix my posts, then how long it took me to write it in the first place. To often where I have spent half my day, if not my entire day, on only a handful or so posts. There are even a few times, every hand full or so weeks, where I can litterally spend double digit in hours on one single post... where maybe half to 2/3rds of them never gets posted because I suddenly just feel "gah... nope... i'm done...skrew this..." and just close down the browser or page in sheer frustration about the post... which I guess is a good thing really, especially for you guys... XD

I am just way to detail oriented, an over acheiving perfectionist, and I don't like to be missunderstood on top of that... and It does not help that I am not good at sifting out the unneccesary stuff either. I also have a very strong ability to get hyper focused on what I am doing, to such an extent that I get almost compleatly blind (and deaf) to almost everything else around me... including just how bad a post have goten. A focus and blindness which usually does not go away untill I have "finished" what I am doing... which for forums is when I finally press "Post Reply" (pressing "Preview" does not help, I have to post the damn thing for it to happen)... which is why most of my posts have edits to them as well. And there is more as well on top of this. I do try to get better at it, and it does work at times... but I tend to relaps way to often. XD

My online posting stuff is, as I have said about my self in real life in general: An unfortunat set of "traits", or "negatraits" (a Bloodbowl term for "negative traits"), in one single person... traits/negatraits that by them selves, or some of them combined, can actually be a good thing for a person... but due to the sheer number of them, and due to certain combinations, they become a massive hinderense to me.

Also... it's way to easy for me to go off topic as well... like this post... so... /end XD

 

[Calistarius]

They're putting in a LOT of $/manpower into this, blindly ignoring demands of the "market" and simply going by idealism alone, would be pure insanity (and ( very) likely kill the series right at the start).

But... is'nt this exacly how CDPR has always worked? I am pretty certain that I have read one of the main guys in CDPR directly stating that earning money is not their main concern when making games.

I mean, they do want their game to do well, and they do want their game to sell... all devs want that... but they have never seemed like a company which shy away from trying something, even if it would potentualy lose them a lot of money due to it.

 

[Inferno.]

But... is'nt this exacly how CDPR has always worked? I am pretty certain that I have read one of the main guys in CDPR directly stating that earning money is not their main concern when making games.

I mean, they do want their game to do well, and they do want their game to sell... all devs want that... but they have never seemed like a company which shy away from trying something, even if it would potentualy lose them a lot of money due to it.

I always saw CDPR as a company that has indie soul and AAA ambitions. Which is why they stand out a bit I guess. They definitely want to be independant and make games they love, as well as experiment. But as much as they try to be humble, you can notice a bit of arrogance sometimes, as well as desire to be the best. They want to be among top 3 developers and for that, ''doing just well'' is not enough. Its not a bad thing though, If not for ambitions, I dont think they would end up where they are today. Its an interesting mix, I am very curious to see where they will end up in 10 year and how high will they climb before their hunger is satisfied.

 

[Suhiira]

They're putting in a LOT of $/manpower into this, blindly ignoring demands of the "market" and simply going by idealism alone, would be pure insanity (and ( very) likely kill the series right at the start).

Yep, shame on CDPR ... they make RPGs not FPS action shooters.

You apparently missed W3's sales figures ... the market CDPR makes games for is alive and well. Not catering to the FPS action game market is not some magical kiss of death for a game company like you seem to believe.

If it were do you think for one minute E/A would still be making Madden Sports updates?

Humm ... actually they might ... do almost no work and sell it at the price of a full game ... bad example.

Skyrim ... various Lego titles ... Minecraft ...Pokémon ... Fallout ... No Mans Sky (OK it sucked ... but it did sell well!) ... Guitar Hero ... and on and on and on ...

 

[The2ndDuesVult]

I always saw CDPR as a company that has indie soul and AAA ambitions. Which is why they stand out a bit I guess. They definitely want to be independant and make games they love, as well as experiment. But as much as they try to be humble, you can notice a bit of arrogance sometimes, as well as desire to be the best. They want to be among top 3 developers and for that, ''doing just well'' is not enough. Its not a bad thing though, If not for ambitions, I dont think they would end up where they are today. Its an interesting mix, I am very curious to see where they will end up in 10 year and how high will they climb before their hunger is satisfied.

Oh the AAA ambition make pretentious movie games that wow you with its amazing graphics or wow such story but plays like afternoon shit after eating McDonalds. Most modern AAA games are spit to face to anyone whos called a gamer.

 

[lord_blex]

You apparently missed W3's sales figures ... the market CDPR makes games for is alive and well. Not catering to the FPS action game market is not some magical kiss of death for a game company like you seem to believe.

witcher 3's audience is certainly not people with an attention span of 20 minutes playing games purely for action, but it's not purely hardcore rpg players either. based on the definition of rpg some of you are throwing around this forum (the player characters abilities should be controlled by their stats, not the player's skills), the witcher 3 is barely one. you enhance certain playstyles with your skillpoints, but otherwise it's a game if dexterity. if you look at the differences between witcher 1, 2 and 3, you can see how they open more and more towards the "general public". if we keep the strict definition of rpg, I can perfectly see cyberpunk being an "action game" with rpg elements.

 

[Sardukhar]

witcher 3's audience is certainly not people with an attention span of 20 minutes playing games purely for action, but it's not purely hardcore rpg players either. based on the definition of rpg some of you are throwing around this forum (the player characters abilities should be controlled by their stats, not the player's skills), the witcher 3 is barely one..

Yep, basically true. In terms of choice and consequences and depth of character to really throw yourself into, it is one of the finest RPGs around. In terms of gameplay, it is barely an RPG at all.

This distinction is important because unlike in Witcher 3, built around one character and one way of playing, CP2077 is supposed to offer you the opportunity to build your -own- character. And it would kind of suck to build a hacker only to have to use actual real-life skills and stats you don't really have.

The only real way to play Geralt if you suck at twitch games is to turn the difficulty way down. Which makes sense, to a point, because Geralt is a Badass.

But Cyberpunk is not the same setting and you are not a chemically-enhanced, genetically-modified, hyper-trained super-soldier who can cast magic.

In short, you aren't playing a Mary Sue super character, at least not at first. Maybe never, since CPunk doesn't really do that very well.

So, yes, it would be nice if you could play a badass on a more realistic level without turning the difficulty so far down you become a God Of War.

I'm sure it won't be turn based or Real Time with Pause, but I'm really hoping they do something like Bloodlines or a skill/cyber-based bullet-time/tactical mode.

 

[Suhiira]

Yep, basically true. In terms of choice and consequences and depth of character to really throw yourself into, it is one of the finest RPGs around. In terms of gameplay, it is barely an RPG at all.

Got it in one Sard!
I'm one of those that turned the difficulty way down in W3 in order to play it. And because I could I enjoyed the game. Where that not an option I wouldn't have played it at all because I dislike and physically can't play twitch or RTS games. To me the combat was a relatively unimportant part of the game, something I had to do to get to the interesting parts. To others combat is the essential focus of a game and game elements that don't involve combat are filler.

The beauty of W3 was it managed to do a fair job of keeping both groups happy. For that alone CDPR deserves praise.

This distinction is important because unlike in Witcher 3, built around one character and one way of playing, CP2077 is supposed to offer you the opportunity to build your -own- character. And it would kind of suck to build a hacker only to have to use actual real-life skills and stats you don't really have.
...
But Cyberpunk is not the same setting and you are not a chemically-enhanced, genetically-modified, hyper-trained super-soldier who can cast magic.

Also on point.

While I have no doubt combat will be a large part of CP2077 I really hope it's not such a central and essential part of the game that the only viable character is a Solo with some side skills in persuasion, hacking, ect. Or a non-Solo that's forced to spend 50-90% of their points on combat skills in order to survive. Either totally defeats the purpose of an RPG, and the game becomes just another action game with RPG elements.

And to create CP2077 with ONLY the sort of FPS/twitch based combat many seem to demand, with no alternative option(s), would be a tragedy and a travesty.

And while that would no doubt make some people very happy, much of loyal RPG fan base CDPR has cultivated with the Witcher games won't be among them. Shooting themselves in the foot just doesn't strike me as something CDPR really wants to do.

 

[Sardukhar]

And while that would no doubt make some people very happy, much of loyal RPG fan base CDPR has cultivated with the Witcher games won't be among them. Shooting themselves in the foot just doesn't strike me as something CDPR really wants to do.

Mm.

See, here's another difference: Witcher 3 was a fantasy sword and sorcery game. Skyrim. Dark Age Might and Magic. Dragon Age. Etc. It's actually kind of okay if the fighting in games like that is more specialized for fans of such gameplay. It'll be either crappy (Skyrim) or quite good (Dark Souls) and either way it has a place. W3 kind of went the middle road and it was..fine.

But Cyberpunk has shooting. Lots of it. And that will draw not only comparisons but also involuntary brain-mechanics that say "shooter". There are very few good shooter RPGs - we've discussed all the attempts at them and all their notable failures.

In order to jump past the "It's a shooter!" "It's a crappy shooter!" framework, CDPR will have to either make a serviceable shooter with a great RPG around it, or a great RPG with a serviceable shooter around it.

How they go about this will affect a LOT how people see and play the game.

And when you're fighting an uphill battle against the legacy of Doom and CoD and Uncharted and Battlefield and Titanfall and however many other shooters are out there without real RPG elements to them or with crappy RPG elements stuck on? It's going to be a real battle indeed to keep true to an RPG heart and wade through the million and one comments like, "Fallout 4 had better combat!" etc.

 

[LegateLaniusThe2nd]

Got it in one Sard!
I'm one of those that turned the difficulty way down in W3 in order to play it. And because I could I enjoyed the game. Where that not an option I wouldn't have played it at all because I dislike and physically can't play twitch or RTS games. To me the combat was a relatively unimportant part of the game, something I had to do to get to the interesting parts. To others combat is the essential focus of a game and game elements that don't involve combat are filler.

The beauty of W3 was it managed to do a fair job of keeping both groups happy. For that alone CDPR deserves praise.


Also on point.

While I have no doubt combat will be a large part of CP2077 I really hope it's not such a central and essential part of the game that the only viable character is a Solo with some side skills in persuasion, hacking, ect. Or a non-Solo that's forced to spend 50-90% of their points on combat skills in order to survive. Either totally defeats the purpose of an RPG, and the game becomes just another action game with RPG elements.

And to create CP2077 with ONLY the sort of FPS/twitch based combat many seem to demand, with no alternative option(s), would be a tragedy and a travesty.

And while that would no doubt make some people very happy, much of loyal RPG fan base CDPR has cultivated with the Witcher games won't be among them. Shooting themselves in the foot just doesn't strike me as something CDPR really wants to do.

I wouldn't say action junkies are happy with the W3 lol. Actually I wouldn't say anyone who expects good gameplay would like the W3. The main unanimous criticism for the game is the jarringly weak quality in gameplay which is a major flaw for a game to have. It's like a reserve MGSV but MGSV is at least a good video game even if its script sucks. I don't want this fate happen to Cyberpunk since I've loved this series long before CDPR got its hands on it.

 

[Suhiira]

In order to jump past the "It's a shooter!" "It's a crappy shooter!" framework, CDPR will have to either make a serviceable shooter with a great RPG around it, or a great RPG with a serviceable shooter around it.

I obviously vote for #2 because chances are I couldn't play a typical shooter.

You do realize you said exactly the same thing in two different ways? Intentional?

I wouldn't say action junkies are happy with the W3 lol.

They certainly weren't thrilled. And this very forum topic revolves around that. But neither were they so disappointed they didn't (for the most part) bother to buy and play it.
Win-win if you ask me.

 

[Corewolf]

Got it in one Sard!
I'm one of those that turned the difficulty way down in W3 in order to play it. And because I could I enjoyed the game. Where that not an option I wouldn't have played it at all because I dislike and physically can't play twitch or RTS games. To me the combat was a relatively unimportant part of the game, something I had to do to get to the interesting parts. To others combat is the essential focus of a game and game elements that don't involve combat are filler.

The beauty of W3 was it managed to do a fair job of keeping both groups happy. For that alone CDPR deserves praise.


Also on point.

While I have no doubt combat will be a large part of CP2077 I really hope it's not such a central and essential part of the game that the only viable character is a Solo with some side skills in persuasion, hacking, ect. Or a non-Solo that's forced to spend 50-90% of their points on combat skills in order to survive. Either totally defeats the purpose of an RPG, and the game becomes just another action game with RPG elements.

And to create CP2077 with ONLY the sort of FPS/twitch based combat many seem to demand, with no alternative option(s), would be a tragedy and a travesty.

And while that would no doubt make some people very happy, much of loyal RPG fan base CDPR has cultivated with the Witcher games won't be among them. Shooting themselves in the foot just doesn't strike me as something CDPR really wants to do.

The thing is that the Witcher was more of a "Story RPG" In that any character development or personality and attitude difference between players was almost entirely in dialogue choices. Combat was entirely actionized and, while good, did have its fair share of issues in being properly "RPG-ish" For example. in DnD, I could randomly choose to pull out a potion bottle and force feed it to an orc I am in combat with. In Cyberpunk I could try to forcibly drug someone. In both instances the GM would determine my success based on skills and difficulty rolls and things. Most video game RPG's just can't accommodate for the sheer number of choices a person could make in a real life situation that a GM could on a tabletop game. Hence you get "ACTION-RPG" games that are more about planting you in the role of an established character (Geralt of Rivia) but still have some RPG elements like skills and class that let you customize him to a degree... But unlike tabletops, I can't have Geralt suddenly decide "no, I'm sick of being a witcher, let's try a different class or job or whatever" like I could in a pen and paper game.

I really hope that CP2077 has alternate career paths and that you aren't shanghaied into a single role. If I want to avoid combat with a punk in an alley, let me try and talk em down. Hell, let me just give them all my stuff even and then roleplay having to deal with that kind of fallout (Naked on the streets of Night City? What the fuck would I do?) Don't make every outcome of a situation either a "talked them down or killed them" option. And if combat DOES happen, make it possible (though rare) for me to lose without necessarily being a game over. Same with enemies. Could make for more of a rival-ish situation (or something like the Nemesis system from Shadow of Mordor) where people start to know you and have opinions about you based on things like that, and someone you did (or didn't kill) affects you later in the game.

Combat, I still think that you can do skill points while still allowing for some player skill to compensate to a degree for it. I am still going to repeatedly Cite the original Deus Ex for this. Yes, you can put no points into pistols and use them, but after a single shot the recoil is so bad it takes FOREVER for your crosshairs to close back up so your bullet spread is awful. But if you are patient and or try to get closer, you can compensate just a bit. and or Bloodlines in that skill investment would, quite honestly, make or break combat in a lot of cases.