Gameplay - depth vs complexity vs fun

[kofeiiniturpa]

But there is far more to it, than % success rate. RPG's are about decision making and consequences...from background, customization, dialogue, story choices, playstyles, etc, etc.

I've not argued otherwise. But that also has not been the topic.

I disagree...along with basic stats and skill increase ( and a poor karma system), they were absolutely fundamental aspect of building your character, when it comes to gameplay.

You can think that and it's not wrong to do so, but this is the moment when you need to know that SPECIAL was cobbled together in something like two weeks after losing the GURPS rights, and the perks were Brian Fargo's last minute idea to spice up the level up screen. And Fallout 2 was rushed out in about a year so there wasn't much time for refinement. They were complementary, not a fundamental point of the system.

You see, this is the whole "crux" of the "problem"...you see mechanics ( almost like some set in stone rpg dogma), but completely ignore the setting they take place in.

I absolutely have not ignored the setting, fictional nor mechanical.

I expect (hope for) certain principles to be adhered to due to what the game ihan been advertised as. I don't know why it is a "problem" , since what I ask for is not all that different from asking a racing game to have racing.

This game will ( and I'm 99.999% sure of this) play in realistic simulation of Night City.

Oh, I definitely expect the presentation and even some if its base mechanics to strive for that. Certainly. But - depending on how one defines "realism" in this very context - that does not prevent exploration of different (than normal) mechanical solutions. Nor does it mean they shouldn't try to explore them.

Copy pasting similar skill system like in older crpgs

As opposed to copypasting a similiar system than your latest blockbuster shooter? No. That's a baggage you have put on my back, I've suggested no such thing. The only thing I want them to "copy", is Cyberpunk 2020. And how they should manage it is the big question; what to keep, what to leave out, what to modify and how and on what kind of core could it be adapted to best...

They can draw their pointers for the core from all over the place as far as I care. Witcher 1, New Vegas, Wizardry 8, what ever. And their sources of inspiration have already been cited to be games like Fallout 2, Baldur's Gate, System Shock and Deus Ex (the orginal). Among others I would imagine.

Eh, no. Definitely not.

I dunno, developers themselves have said they needed to adapt to publishers whims on moving shit to consoles and that they wouldn't fund those more niche genres that weren't appealing on consoles anymore. Fallout was pushed on console by Interplay before they killed it, DAO was once seen as something like "the last of the mohicans" when EA wanted to annualize the series and make in more console friendly (we all remember the "awesome button" debacle). Everybody was going for consoles because they were a popular platform -- and the games there were different than on PC (for obvious reasons). That's not all there is to the whole thing, but that most certainly did play a role there.

The whole RPG genre was thought next to dead for a time, up until recently. This is not even about "platform wars" either, I don't give a shit about that. That's what happened.

It will have far more complexity than most of older rpgs, while skills functioning more realistically and more fitting to it's setting.

The "complexity" is true, obviously newer games have "more complexity", but it is also a smokescreen. The player is none the wiser if there's "more complexity" under the hood, hidden from him and not to be played with. And complexity as a general term is not even the point here. It's the intent of percieved experience. Your realistic sim should provide the best realistic simulation possible; an RPG should provide the best RPG gameplay possible. RPG's play differently from a normal every saturday action simulation; and they should be allowed to too - for the whole nine yards (the often used "But what about story and choices?" is a cop out; that's only half the package if even that, all things considered).

Do you not see the irony, of stating the game should not be designed in one way and stereotyping it as "dumb", while saying your preference is "objectively" better for the game?

A tad disingenuous thing to say given the line of arguments you've been using.

And it would seem that we are speaking of different games altogether anyway. My context is RPG, and it is dumb for an RPG to play unRPG-like; you have pretty straight implied that you might not even be looking for an RPG here (and not just from your action gaming arguments and shunning of RPG design, but also the way you questioned my desire to have an RPG here earlier).

This feels like re-re-repetition of the same theme, in the end our differences come down to:

You're making it more complex that it is.

The only difference is that you want a perk shooter that embraces "modern action principles"; and I want a cRPG that looks, feels and plays like one even if it is a modern game.

In the end it comes down to what people define as "roleplaying"

That's pointless. "Roleplaying" is an act of imagination that happens under a specified narrative framework and might include physical actions, and it happens either on a stage, in the forest with other LARPERs, in a game, or just in one's head with what ever activity or thought excercise is harnessed for it as the framework. You can "roleplay" in any game, or you can "roleplay" completely without a game. But if you have a game that is called "Roleplaying game" you need to consider the relationship between the terms "roleplaying" and "game" since the genre label specifies the gameplay there to be roleplaying (that's something the game has to produce for the player, else it's not a "roleplaying game" but just a game where you "roleplay" in at your own initiative, just like you could in any other game). And you if you have no rules to define the gameplay, it is not a game at all but a virtual toy. (Here the gameplay is roleplaying and the rules are the character system. With those rules the the game tells you how you can play at any given moment and through playing those rules you provide the game the information on how to react to what you do there.)

 

[Rawls]

The focus of an RPG is playing a character. Leveling or skill improvement mechanics do not make a game an RPG.

Yep. Playing a character and making choices as them that have consequences within world and story is the imperative IMO. The rest of it is important too as far as how enjoyable the game is ... but this is the heart of a RPG.

 

[kofeiiniturpa]

I can not agree with the notion that RPG does not include character building/progression and only consists of choose-your-own-adventure and dialog choices. The skills/stats -are- the character as defined by the rules of the game, and they are the tools to provide the roleplaying. Is ot not elsewise just a narrative adventure?

 

[Meccanical]

Stats in a true RPG should define more that how big your number is when you hit something.

Statistics are a the quantitative summary of who your character is as a person. What they can do, how well they do it, the potential they have to learn to do things, etc.

Too long games have focused on stats being as things your character does in a fight, RPGs should be more than that.

 

[kofeiiniturpa]

Definitely.

 

[Rawls]

Is ot not elsewise just a narrative adventure?

Yes I think ... but I would consider that an RPG. IMO we (humans) try and over-categorize things too much. I think I just have a broader definition of what I think qualifies as an RPG. Would I prefer the stats, skills, & character customization at start? Yes. Do I want them in my rpgs? Yes. Do I consider them the primary element and first priority? No. Can a game without them still be an RPG? IMO yes.

 

[Calistarius]

I feel though that you need all of that other stuff too, like stats, rpg mechanics, the rules, character growth, that the characters skills and abilities matter more then the players own skills to the outcome of scenarios, equipment and such, and a lot of other things as well, for a game to be a full RPG.

If you remove all of these things, then all that you have left is "acting"... and to me acting alone is not enough to make something an "roleplaying game". Same with the story, that it is not enough to make something a "roleplaying game" in my mind.

Acting and Story are parts of the way towards it, but not enough to reach a full roleplaying experience by them selves in my mind.

If acting and a story was the only thing required for something to be an RPG, if the definition of RPG was just "Acting inside of a story"... then I would never have started to play, or even wanted to play, roleplaying games. It is all those other ingredients, outside of acting and a story, that makes me want to play them... it's those things which brings spice to the mix, which makes it interesting, which makes it fun to play... and as such all those other ingredients are just as importent as the "acting" and story when it comes to what is and is not a part of what an "roleplaying game" is... atleast in my mind.

 

[Mebrilia]

Not even mention the "Roleplay means be in the shoes of a character" is really wrong why principle...

By this logic. Even call of duty is an rpg... Even street fighter... Even mortal kombat... almost 90% are rpg following this logic.

 

[kofeiiniturpa]

Sometimes i even wonder if people bother to inform about the pen and paper game before posting that stuff... If they do they would see such mechanics are not fitting cyberpunk at all.. I mean this is a game based on a pen and paper game and setting last thing i want is another themepark shooter masked as rpg.

It means so very little to certain people. Mainstream games have been little by little conditioned to be expected to be of a certain type and style, and that certain type and style only. It most often appears like it's a conpletely alien and unthinkable idea that one would diverge from that formula.

That's why I try to keep pushing for divergence and variety in design when ever I see one these rare cases I care to follow (at all). (Ususally in vain, but it's fun to imagine, suggest and argue for how the game could be the best possible and how to avoid the worst case scenario.)

 

[Rawls]

As I said -

Playing a character and making choices as them that have consequences within world and story

is what gives the player agency within the game and makes it a role playing game. Just being another character is not role playing. Making choices that have consequences as a character is role playing. It's the whole beauty of PnP systems IMO and what makes the games so enjoyable. You do not do this in call of duty or mortal combat, or many other games.

A better example that is a critique of my position would be something like the Walking Dead game series by telltale. You assume a character's role and make choices of them that have consequences within the story. You arguably don't really effect the world too much because the world normally ends in approximately the same place regardless of your choices. However, I think it largely does fit into my definition. And I also think it feels more like an Adventure Game than a classical RPG. Those types of games are the ones that give me the most trouble as far as argument goes. These types of games are the ones that I think kofeiiniturpa and Calistarius are contemplating with their objections. It's a fair critique and I acknowledge their position as completely reasonable.

However, I also much prefer simple broad definitions because once you get too much into character customization and skills and stats it becomes difficult to parse what mechanic systems make an RPG and what doesn't. Other than hair styles and clothing, there is little character customization in TW3. There is a stat and skill system that deals almost entirely with combat style but doesn't really touch on other things. I would strongly argue that it is an RPG at its heart.

Also, there are some games that have skill progression and similar mechanics that I would firmly say are not RPGs. Like Naughty Dog's the Last of Us. You can upgrade weapons, skills, & talents etc ... but you don't really make choices as the characters. You watch the story, you don't participate in it. That's all well and good (I love that game) but it is not an RPG.

Now I do agree with Calistarius that games that dont have stats, skills, character customization etc are not "pure" RPGs. There are tons of hybrids like Action RPGs, Adventure RPGs, real time strategy RPGs etc etc. But I think these still qualify under the RPG umbrella so long as you are playing a character and making choices as them that have consequences within world and story. That is the "heart" of an RPG. Without it the game isn't an RPG.

This ended up a lot longer than I initially intended.

EDIT: To bring it back to my original point and the topic ... all I was saying that role playing choices for a character that involve an excellent narrative ought to be the primary focus. All the other systems are not "necessary" to qualify as an RPG. Having said that, I do hope for a deep character customization system like this - http://forums.cdprojektred.com/forum...50#post8537050 and a deep skill system like this RPG Mechanics: Skill Progression and Roles. I think they are highly important for this game to stay somewhat close to it's PnP RPG roots because the underlying system is so good. There will of course have to be adaptations and I personally enjoy a more real time action style in combat. But it should have the CP 2020 RPG systems at its heart.

 

[kofeiiniturpa]

I also much prefer simple broad definitions because once you get too much into character customization and skills and stats it becomes difficult to parse what mechanic systems make an RPG and what doesn't.

I can respect that. However, when you keep loose definitions that let most of anything go if it has the slightest resemblance, you also risk losing quality since there's no similiar focus on delivery as there would be with stricter definitions.

I'm in search for a more specific (rather than loose) experiences mostly because the looseness of the definition and "blurring of the lines" through genreblending has prevented that from happening for a long time, and Cyberpunk 2077 is not only a title I'm quite looking forward to, but also what I see as a great opportunity to correct that mistake a good deal (and even without sacrificing much of of the current design sensibilities - some would have to, though, but that's acceptable).

 

[Meccanical]

I agree that games are getting pretty samey nowadays, I understand it makes no sense to reinvent the wheel, but there are hundreds of ways to make a wheel.

Learn from the past and try new things please.

 

[MadqueenShow]

Sometimes it seems quite of a dilemma about how much a "know gameplay" can be changed for the sake of originality. We are all used to 4 or 5 different types of gameplays (depending on the games we use to play) and while hard gamers may have a much quicker learning curve I'm not sure if someone more casual would feel comfortable with a dynamic he's not used to. Sometimes you can see the same effect with character customization.

I believe that is safe in assuming that most people here know the dynamics of the pen and paper RPGs (and I assume that because I suppose that if you didn't play Cyberpunk 2020 you wouldn't be here that soon, maybe I'm wrong), and even if we, old school roleplayers, would love a video game RPG to have this level of customization I'm not sure if that can be extended to the general public. I remember the old days when I could spend a week creating a character if I had to do it know to play a video game I would kill myself. The balance between enough customization and not too much is quite personal, I personally prefer as much customization as possible, and as many endings and decisions as possible, but both the complexities at a technical level and the reaction of the players are elements to consider.

 

[Zagor-Te-Nay]

Metal Gear Solid V and Rainbox Six Siege are both multiplayer shooters not single player games where one person controls the entire team. Now, if multiplayer is MANDATORY in CP2077 then your arguments/suggestions make perfect sense. But that's not gonna happen.

Nope...MGSV is single player tactical action stealth game and there are plenty of other similar examples, across genres. My advice is stop looking at labels and instead focus on mechanics.

They were complementary, not a fundamental point of the system.

Then we completely disagree on that. Outside of basic stat bonuses, and linear skill increments, whole system revolved around them, whether it was intended or not.

As opposed to copypasting a similiar system than your latest blockbuster shooter? No. That's a baggage you have put on my back, I've suggested no such thing. The only thing I want them to "copy", is Cyberpunk 2020. And how they should manage it is the big question; what to keep, what to leave out, what to modify and how and on what kind of core could it be adapted to best...
They can draw their pointers for the core from all over the place as far as I care. Witcher 1, New Vegas, Wizardry 8, what ever. And their sources of inspiration have already been cited to be games like Fallout 2, Baldur's Gate, System Shock and Deus Ex (the orginal). Among others I would imagine.

Again, no. This game will have action based real time gameplay, as confirmed. Looking up to designing basics like controls to action games do not make them more action games, only games that control better. Those games have been doing it for a longer time and better, it makes sense for CDPR to look up to it.
Real time gunplay does not make a game COD, or driving an automatic GTA clone.

The "complexity" is true, obviously newer games have "more complexity", but it is also a smokescreen. The player is none the wiser if there's "more complexity" under the hood, hidden from him and not to be played with. And complexity as a general term is not even the point here. It's the intent of percieved experience. Your realistic sim should provide the best realistic simulation possible; an RPG should provide the best RPG gameplay possible. RPG's play differently from a normal every saturday action simulation; and they should be allowed to too - for the whole nine yards (the often used "But what about story and choices?" is a cop out; that's only half the package if even that, all things considered).

Correction: from what info we have ( and their previous work) closest we know it will be an action roleplaying game( with player skill as relevant factor) set in open world/sandbox realistic simulation of Night City. Notice how many differences in this sentence alone are next to crpg or PnP game? "RPG here" has to be coherently designed with the rest, whether people like the change in game format or not.

My context is RPG, and it is dumb for an RPG to play unRPG-like; you have pretty straight implied that you might not even be looking for an RPG here (and not just from your action gaming arguments and shunning of RPG design, but also the way you questioned my desire to have an RPG here earlier).

Nope, I never in any way, stated that. What I disagree is with your dogmatic definition of rpg, based on formula of series of games that were drastically differently designed from even the most basic elements like controls, camera, etc...all of which were inherently linked to their rpg mechanics and how they work.

The only difference is that you want a perk shooter that embraces "modern action principles"; and I want a cRPG that looks, feels and plays like one even if it is a modern game.

Read the above.

That's pointless. "Roleplaying" is an act of imagination that happens under a specified narrative framework and might include physical actions, and it happens either on a stage, in the forest with other LARPERs, in a game, or just in one's head with what ever activity or thought excercise is harnessed for it as the framework. You can "roleplay" in any game, or you can "roleplay" completely without a game. But if you have a game that is called "Roleplaying game" you need to consider the relationship between the terms "roleplaying" and "game" since the genre label specifies the gameplay there to be roleplaying (that's something the game has to produce for the player, else it's not a "roleplaying game" but just a game where you "roleplay" in at your own initiative, just like you could in any other game). And you if you have no rules to define the gameplay, it is not a game at all but a virtual toy. (Here the gameplay is roleplaying and the rules are the character system. With those rules the the game tells you how you can play at any given moment and through playing those rules you provide the game the information on how to react to what you do there.)

I can respect that. However, when you keep loose definitions that let most of anything go if it has the slightest resemblance, you also risk losing quality since there's no similiar focus on delivery as there would be with stricter definitions.

I'm in search for a more specific (rather than loose) experiences mostly because the looseness of the definition and "blurring of the lines" through genreblending has prevented that from happening for a long time, and Cyberpunk 2077 is not only a title I'm quite looking forward to, but also what I see as a great opportunity to correct that mistake a good deal (and even without sacrificing much of of the current design sensibilities - some would have to, though, but that's acceptable).

Again, that is your perspective based on design you prefer. But strict, dogmatic adherence to a set of rules can have as negative impact when setting and different gameplay elements changes next to their predecessors.( Age of Decadence is perfect example).
And there are examples of video game "hybrids" that overcome their strict limitations, and become something unique and entirely of their own. Recent history, we've seen Souls series inspire entire following of games after it, effectively creating whole new genre. Something that would not happen by blindly following someone else's formula.
No reason CDPR can't do similar here.

 

[BjornTheBandit]

People who don't bother to inform themselves don't know what they're missing. The more I dig into Mike Pondsmith's world, the more intrigued I am. And then after educating myself (a bit, nothing close to an expert here) it was cool to see the references in the trailer, and everything felt alot more significant. When I saw the "MILITECH 12GA AUTO" on the side of the Psycho Squad dude's gun, I felt connections being made in my head.

 

[kofeiiniturpa]

Then we completely disagree on that.

That's fair.

Again, no. This game will have action based real time gameplay

I've not suggested otherwise. What I have done (more directly elsewhere; I've not specified anything in this conversation, it's all your assumptions of my meanings) is that I've questioned the nature of "action" in the context of this game by comparison to other, normal action games and called for re-examining the design possibilities. That, and that if the the implied "tactical mode" is still a go, it should lean towards being reminiscent of something more oldschool (reminiscent, or heavily inspired by not "copy pasting" as you like to imply my motivations to be).

Real time gunplay does not make...

Again, I've not suggested non-realtime gameplay anywhere else than for the tactical mode, if it even exists anymore.

Nope, I never in any way, stated that.

This is what you said:

And again, you're looking at things from "it must be Rpg!" perspective. What Cyberpunk should be is a well designed game where rules of the setting, player control and rpg mechanics are consistent and coherent with one another.

To me that reads that the desire for an RPG is asking for something wrong or insufficient, and that the "right" way is "just a game that has X and/or Y where applicable".

What I disagree is with your dogmatic definition of rpg, based on formula of series of games that were drastically differently designed from even the most basic elements like controls, camera, etc...all of which were inherently linked to their rpg mechanics and how they work.

You disagree with my definition, and that's fair, but you have no idea how I would apply that definition to practice (you just assume that I want to copypaste a mysterious "series of games" and apply that verbatim to something where it clearly wasn't meant to fit, which - of course - would be ridiculous, and is a ridiculous claim).

You call me dogmatic, but I see no difference in your vehement insistence on how to do things right "your way"; the continuous "realistic simulation and coherence" mantra for example (as if I would even want something to be incoherent; no, I don't - what you consider "incoherent", I might not because the situation is usually always not meant to be taken literally but still has a coherent reason for why it happens). I've (in other threads) made plenty of suggestions towards compromises that definitely would sound a tad unorthodox in a world that caters only to the mainstream and would certainly lean more towards a "proper" RPG (as it should, when it is called one), but which also wouldn't abandon or neglect the action-like and "modern" gameplay elements (you even responed to one once, but didn't approve -- there apparently was nothing "innovative" there because it wasn't Dark Souls or Mount and Blade -like). Come to think of it, that's all I've done here aside from sport-arguing about the "definition of RPG", and about the merits of turnbased combat and pushing an emulation of that for the possible tactical mode.

And there are examples of video game "hybrids" that overcome their strict limitations, and become something unique and entirely of their own. Recent history, we've seen Souls series inspire entire following of games after it, effectively creating whole new genre. Something that would not happen by blindly following someone else's formula. No reason CDPR can't do similar here.

I'm not sure I follow you anymore... You cite Souls as a good exmaple of "going their own way" and "not blindly following others" (although, 3rd person hack'n slash dungeon crawlers weren't a new thing when Demon's Souls came out) and make that a good thing.

Yet, throughout this whole discussion you've argued against that by implying that what I suggest is dogmaticly and blindly following and copying something (that I've not even specified) when my intent (and my whole history on this board - this discussion included) consists of pushing CDPR to precisely try and do something "differently" (you even scolded that by turning it to a "different for the sake of it; reinventing the wheel" argument), and pushing the envelope with stuff that is very rarely if ever even tried anymore, and that they'd not just copypaste the latest trends verbatim and laugh "ha, ha, easy money" on their way to bank. But your argument is somehow not guilty of that even if it very clearly (and by intent, I bet) wants to ape every other "big budget action game" in recent history and near future. What is it that I'm missing here?

 

[LegateLaniusThe2nd]

Well ... to quote Wikipedia:

A role-playing game (sometimes spelled roleplaying game and abbreviated to RPG) is a game in which players assume the roles of characters in a fictional setting. Players take responsibility for acting out these roles within a narrative, either through literal acting or through a process of structured decision-making or character development.Actions taken within many games succeed or fail according to a formal system of rules and guidelines.

There are several forms of RPG. The original form, sometimes called the tabletop RPG, is conducted through discussion, whereas in live action role-playing games (LARP) players physically perform their characters actions. In both of these forms, an arranger called a game master (GM) usually decides on the rules and setting to be used, acting as referee, while each of the other players plays the role of a single character.

Several varieties of RPG also exist in electronic media, such as multi-player text-based MUDs and their graphics-based successors, massively multiplayer online role-playing games (MMORPGs). Role-playing games also include single-player role-playing video games in which players control a character or team who undertake quests, and may include capabilities that advance using statistical mechanics. These games often share settings and rules with tabletop RPGs, but emphasize character advancement more than collaborative storytelling.

Despite this variety of forms, some game forms such as trading card games and war-games that are related to role-playing games may not be included. Role-playing activity may sometimes be present in such games, but it is not the primary focus.

I'd amend that final statement to read:

Despite this variety of forms, some game forms such as trading card games, war-games, and first person shooters that are related to role-playing games may not be included. Role-playing activity may sometimes be present in such games, but it is not the primary focus.

And therein lays the real issue.
The focus of an RPG is playing a character. Leveling or skill improvement mechanics do not make a game an RPG.

If your soo picky about what a roleplaying game is non of the Witcher games are remotely close to what a true old school rpg is yet CDPR viewed the series as such and marketed the series as such. In the end of the day I want to game to be well designed, polished, slightly challenging and fun I could care less if its more true to pen and paper or not. CDPR has yet to even make a game that was true to pen and paper experience to begin with. Action adventure with rpg elements is what they were if you want to be picky.

I'm not sure I follow you anymore... You cite Souls as a good exmaple of "going their own way" and "not blindly following others" (although, 3rd person hack'n slash dungeon crawlers weren't a new thing when Demon's Souls came out) and make that a good thing.
Yet, throughout this whole discussion you've argued against that by implying that what I suggest is dogmaticly and blindly following and copying something (that I've not even specified) when my intent (and my whole history on this board - this discussion included) consists of pushing CDPR to precisely try and do something "differently" (you even scolded that by turning it to a "different for the sake of it; reinventing the wheel" argument), and pushing the envelope with stuff that is very rarely if ever even tried anymore, and that they'd not just copypaste the latest trends verbatim and laugh "ha, ha, easy money" on their way to bank. But your argument is somehow not guilty of that even if it very clearly (and by intent, I bet) wants to ape every other "big budget action game" in recent history and near future. What is it that I'm missing here?

Nothing is hundred percent original that said Demon Souls and Dark Souls 1 most definitely shook up the rpg and hack/slash genre up since their releases. These games also felt very distinct/unique compared to its competition before Souls like games started being released.

 

[kofeiiniturpa]

Action adventure with rpg elements is what they were if you want to be picky.

That they are.

CDPR has yet to even make a game that was true to pen and paper experience to begin with.

So what?

There's always the first time for everything if there's will to do it.

Demon Souls and Dark Souls 1 most definitely shook up the rpg and hack/slash genre up since their releases. These games also felt very distinct/unique compared to its competition before Souls like games started being released.

That's true. Not really "very" distinct/unique, but fresh nonetheless; a lot of that is just due to the "prepare to die" difficulty schtic, though.

 

[Mebrilia]

Based on is not "complete simulation of" it will nessecerally take a different form from the PnP game. other wise you would need a GM to play it.

Honestly if you are expecting a simulation of the PnP game you are in for a bad time.

YEs?
How about sword coast legends? before releasing they had a lot of people interested in a title labeled as Based on the 5th ediction of D&D when people got finally the game they noticed there was not D&D mechanics at all instead it had like hack and slash mechanics... result?

Almost all buyers asked to the refund on steam and the dev team face bankrupt

Also seems you are lacking to follow the statement cd project red when it claims "You could import your character in your p&p game.." this imply the pen and people rules will be if not loyal almost loyal to the pen and paper game.....

Is perfectly viable develop a thid person rpg in real time using P&P mechanics... Fallout new vegas is an example (they were using the Special system that is a copycat system of GURPS) and managed to deliver an amazing RPG...

Divinity original Sin is a turn based isometric rpg that works pretty much like a pen and paper and sold extremely well... Divinity original sin 2 is still in development and despite the early access status is doing so amazngly well in rating....

Pillars of eternity had a nice success too and they have the sequel already funded...

On the other hand mainstream AAA titles are having overall a bad time...

Fallout4 sucked..
The sims 4 sucked...
Mass effect andromeda Sucked...

As cdproject stated they want do a game about cyberpunk that will have the cyberpunk "Feel" Mike Pondwith itself told that his main concerning is see a videogame that of cyberpunk has only the title...

This should be an indication on what kind of game they want deliver and again stating at what cd project told "A true rpg"...

Is not important if will be

ttp/ffp toggleable in real time with the p&p stat and skill system to drive the gameplay
Isometric
Turnbased...

What they are aiming for is for a true rpg...

And in order to get the cyberpunk feel you have to stay loyal to the system and the settings...

Again if i want a technologic shooter or action game i have like a LOT of titles for that.

 

[kofeiiniturpa]

What they are aiming for is for a true rpg...

That's something to hope for (and not least because that's what they've implied).

But it wouldn't be the first time when things just don't add up if - I'm totally not jinxing it here - this thing ends up blowing in the end.