Gameplay - depth vs complexity vs fun

+

Gameplay - depth vs complexity vs fun


  • Total voters
    273
Mebrilia;n8561850 said:
What they are aiming for is for a true rpg...

If only this wasn't totally fucking subjective. then more than two people could agree what it means.

Mebrilia;n8561850 said:
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.....

Yes, and what they want and what works are not always the same thing. also don't take off hand comments from god knows how many years ago as gospel. it only leads to disappointment.
 
kofeiiniturpa;n8554010 said:
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?

No, I'm looking it closer in context on what the game will be. If this was planned as isometric, turn based rpg like recent Wasteland or older Fallouts, I'd agree on most of your points.

For this, closest framework would be core Deus Ex...with a far more expanded rpg mechanics including stats and non combat skills.
 
Zagor-Te-Nay;n8571510 said:
No, I'm looking it closer in context on what the game will be.

...

For this, closest framework would be core Deus Ex...with a far more expanded rpg mechanics including stats and non combat skills.

"Will" be, yes. Isn't it fun how predictable this all has become with everything practically equalling each other no matter who does it or what's the franchise? You only need a hint about the premise of the game (here, CDPR, cyberpunk and RPG), and you can already conclude it will be a "glorified Deus Ex" (Deus Ex HR and onwards is what I take it you mean, from how you've come off).

The sad thing here, aside from (and including, paradoxically enough) that nobody's thinking outside the box anymore, is that you are likely right and the game will be exactly that, a first person shooter with a loose perktree working as an on/off switchboard (this button unlocks somersaults, this one cartwheels, this allows you to attach a scope to your gun, this allows you try to hack a computer, and this one makes your red nose glow in the dark so you can see) for mundane abilities that you can never "try" but simply do or do not. Nothing new under the sun, commonplace design principles turned into a commonplace game, a lot of people are happy and few disgruntled (like people like me who would've wanted a bit more from an opportunity of this caliber, and it will never be known whether that would've worked) and the game sells like hotcakes. But it also means there was never any need for the Cyberpunk 2020 franchise to be involved, a generic "inspired by" setting and system would've sufficed well. It wouldn't be much unlike like what happened to Fallout or Syndicate.


If this was planned as isometric, turn based rpg like recent Wasteland or older Fallouts, I'd agree on most of your points.

I still haven't suggested that here. I concluded years ago that this will not be an oldschool game. What I'm asking for, is expanding the horizons on gameplay design from the homogenized new-school principles so that the game doesn't need to be just a "glorified Deus Ex" combined with Witcher 3 (and or GTA V, probably) as expected by a lot of people.
That it can be it's own thing that stands firmly on its own feet, rather than on the design and success of others (excluding the franchise it's supposed to be a part of).
 
Last edited:
kofeiiniturpa;n8572920 said:
It would be much like what happened to Fallout or Syndicate.

Good grief I hope they don't pull a syndicate, that would be horrific. not that i think they will, for a start they can write a story.

I know they want to make something that is more of an RPG, I just don't know how you do that and make it a fun game. Partly that is a problem with me, turn based mechanics make my teeth hurt. Partly it is because the base system is predicated on having a group of people working together and this is more than likely a single player game.

The single player part means you have to try to rely on AI companions to fill the other rolls. It has been done but it's not great since it would always require you to take over them to do a thing, for instance picking a lock, or if you could pick the lock you needed the AI to be the front line fighter. you end up screwed one way or the other.

They might be able to improve on this, hell I really hope they do. but adhering to close to a PnP system can really hurt crpgs because so much of those mechanics the don't need or can't use.
 
Hoplite_22;n8573600 said:
I know they want to make something that is more of an RPG, I just don't know how you do that and make it a fun game. Partly that is a problem with me, turn based mechanics make my teeth hurt. Partly it is because the base system is predicated on having a group of people working together and this is more than likely a single player game.

The single player part means you have to try to rely on AI companions to fill the other rolls. It has been done but it's not great since it would always require you to take over them to do a thing, for instance picking a lock, or if you could pick the lock you needed the AI to be the front line fighter. you end up screwed one way or the other.

They might be able to improve on this, hell I really hope they do. but adhering to close to a PnP system can really hurt crpgs because so much of those mechanics the don't need or can't use.

The thing about "fun" is that it is extremely subjective. Turn based mechanics makes my heart sing for the most part... and if a game is good on top of that as well... well then great! XD

Speaking of turn based... I don't think there is a single person here... not even kofeiiniturpa or Suhiira (sorry if I am mistaken and spoke out of turn with the two of you though), or me for that matter, who thinks this game will actually end up being turnbased. I mean sure... there is always a chance of it happening... but that chance is so small currently, that no one would put money on it. I am pretty certain that most here are certain that this game will be real time (at the very least for the majority of the gameplay).

What I, and some other of us, are asking for is for certain aspect, of what the CP2020 pen and paper rpg's is (and pnp rpg's in general are), to be included in the mix. To speak about two of the things (and maybe the main two, atleast for me), the character stats, and the skill system. Where your characters levels of Body, Intelligence and Reflexes, and several other, plus the skills which you have decided to put points into, dictate for the most part what your character is actually able to do... rather then the players own skill in using a mouse and keyboard (or controller for the ones who use that). Like many of us have said, we don't want this game to be an FPS, or 3rd person shooter, where the players twitch skills matter much or at all... and one of the main guys behind the CP2077 game has him self said that this game is not going to be a multiplayer shooter (which I do also asume means that it will not be a shooter in singleplayer either... but I might asume wrong).

So yeah... just because we want CP2077 to be as close to CP2020 as possible, that we wants stats and skills that actually matter, does not equal the game having to be turnbased.

I know a lot of people really don't like the idea of "I swung my melee weapon and clearly hit them, but I still missed" (like in Morrowind), or "I pointed the crosshair on the opponent and fired my gun, but I still missed (partly like in some of the new Fallout games)... but this is how it should be in my opinion if the game devs are claiming that this will be a true RPG (which they are claiming of course).

The melee thing from Morrowind I can understand that people disslike, but a fix to that is by making some kind of system where the opponent actually reacts to what you do... so if you missed you see the opponent maybe sway back out of the reach of your weapon, or dodge or block or parry if you hit but they managed to stop your attack or something.

But for missing the opponent when your crosshair is on the enemy with ranged weapons, that is a bit more difficult to convay in a good way I think. Part of the problem here is that a lot of people (mostly people from the FPR and Shooter only crowd, but a lot of people in general as well) are so used to (or feel it is logical) that their weapon will hit exactly where you point the crosshair... and that is just not the case in real life, atleast in anything outside of extremely controlled enviroments (like indoors, with a none moving target, at the same constant range, no timelimits on when you need to shoot or something, etc)... real combat is chaos, and as such even professionals miss from time to time with what would be seen as an easy shot by most people.


As for other things you said. I don't think there has really been any kind of word that your actually going to have companiones in the game (be it like in something like Dragon Age: Origins, or like in Mass Effect). I don't recall ever reading anything about it anyway. It has been talked about though by both me and others on the forum befor though, but that has been in the capacity of wondering if there is going to be, and/or wanting, companions in the game.

And there are loads of games which actually do handle companions very well. Mass Effect is not that good at it sure, but part of the problem there I think is that you have no real choice in the matter of what kind of AI each companion in those games used. Other games do this a lot better. Dragon Age: Origins for example is fairly good where you could pick a style of AI that they would use, but especially since you had direct controll over creating an AI behavior for each character your self... something which they totally borrowed from Final Fantasy XII by the way, where it worked really well as well. If you put together a good set of AI rules/conditions for each companion (and your own character as well in DAO) in those games, then you could for the most part stick with controlling one character and let the others do their thing. Occationally you had to switch control though to another character and steer them right... especially in cases where you had to make sure the healing went where it was needed... but for the most part it worked really well. Man... I really liked that system in Final Fantasy XII... it's one (of many) parts of the reason why FFXII is one of my three favorit Final Fantasy games. If Mass Effect had such a system, then the companion system in combat had been much better. XD

Also, there are a lot of games where you do not have to switch characters to for example open a lock, or dissarm a trap or something. Both Dragon Age: Origins, Pillars of Eternity (as far as I remember), Tyranny, and Wasteland 2, has a system where if your targeted character does not have the right skills to unlock a lock or disarm a trap, etc, and if you had a character in the party which could, then that character would actually say "Let me handle that for you. / Step aside, this is my job!" (or something of that nature), and automatically run up to said thing and try and unlock/disarm/do the thing you tried to do. So there is nothing saying that you could not have a system like this in CP2077, if CP2077 will have a companion system that is.


And PnP RPG mechanics can not hurt cRPG's... because if you look at which games are considered to be "cRPG's" you will find that almost all of them are games which are very closelly related to PnP RPG mechanics. Fallout (the original ones that is, anything from 3 and later are ARPG's), Balders Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Dragon Age Origins (not 2 and Inquisition, they are ARPG's), Wasteland 2, Shadowrun, Divinity: Original Sin... etc. Of course... today that "c" at the start of "cRPG" has been dropped, and most people say "RPG" for the most part... but yeah.. cRPG = extreamly simmilar to PnP RPG's in general, and as such PnP RPG mechanics cant really hurt cRPG's, since most of those games are built around PnP RPG like mechanics to begin with. XD
 
Last edited:
Hoplite_22;n8570890 said:
If only this wasn't totally fucking subjective. then more than two people could agree what it means.



Yes, and what they want and what works are not always the same thing. also don't take off hand comments from god knows how many years ago as gospel. it only leads to disappointment.

Is not subjective at all... I think old gamers pretty know very well what a true RPG is.... Now with this modern label the word RPG is also applyed at games that are not rpg at all..

Dark souls: now labeled as RPG in old times would be labeled as dungeon crawler,action,hack and slash..

Ark survival evolved: Is just an online shooter where you tame dinosaur... Labeled as RPG as well....

Mass effect?: Action adventure game

I could go on and make dozen of examples but the result won't change true rpgs are still around despite the abuse of the term RPG and the bland excuse bioware went first to cover the dumbification of their rpg: "Is impossible to define what is rpg" and is sad people fall under this trap.
 
Calistarius;n8579260 said:
Speaking of turn based... I don't think there is a single person here... not even kofeiiniturpa or Suhiira (sorry if I am mistaken and spoke out of turn with the two of you though), or me for that matter, who thinks this game will actually end up being turnbased.

You are right.

I have pushed for something of the like for what ever (if anything) the implied "tactical mode" will be, and I have suggested monetizing with the oldschool niche with a separate A or AA (not AAA) game adaptation of Cyberpunk 2020 (or perhaps throw it at 2050... what ever would fit). But that's all. What I've suggested, or what I would hope for for the core gameplay of CP2077 is quite different (though still using similiar principles of character heavy gameplay design).
 
Last edited:
I don't want a turn-based game, per se, but I do want a game that uses my character's abilities and not my own. THIS ALSO INCLUDES MENTAL AND SOCIAL, since most gamers like to sneak through on those stats and skills with in-person role-play and puzzle-solving.

No. If you aren't smart enough, clever enough or charming enough, you shouldn't be able to think of, execute or persuade your way to success. Any more than shoot your way out.

Also in Cyberpunk, people get pretty jacked up physical abilities and I'd like a way to represent boosted reflexes, tactical mapping, combat coordination and skill software in a cooler and more interesting way than either turn-based or bullet-time.
 
Mebrilia;n8579280 said:
I could go on and make dozen of examples but the result won't change true rpgs are still around despite the abuse of the term RPG and the bland excuse bioware went first to cover the dumbification of their rpg: "Is impossible to define what is rpg" and is sad people fall under this trap.

not what i was saying, i was saying that there are no hard and fast rules to what an RPG is according to people that tend to play them a lot. here on this very forum there has been more than one such discussion where no one agreed that certain things make something an RPG.

Calistarius;n8579260 said:
Speaking of turn based... I don't think there is a single person here... not even kofeiiniturpa or Suhiira (sorry if I am mistaken and spoke out of turn with the two of you though), or me for that matter, who thinks this game will actually end up being turn based. I mean sure... there is always a chance of it happening... but that chance is so small currently, that no one would put money on it. I am pretty certain that most here are certain that this game will be real time (at the very least for the majority of the game play).

nor indeed was i attempting to invoke them or anyone else. i was referencing the fact that turn based is a literal version of PnP combat.
 
LegateLaniusThe2nd;n8556120 said:
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.
So since CDPRs previous games were not "true" RPGs, in that you played a preset character with some player driven choices in that characters combat style CDPR should not attempt to make CP2077 closer to a "true" RPG then Witcher was?

You've made it clear your opinion of what makes a game fun is all that matters to you, and that's totally fair. You object to any one who has an opinion that doesn't mesh with your own, also fair. What I do object to is your berating any opinions, and people, that that don't match your own. Please continue trying to convince others of your opinions, but please don't claim some moral high ground in the process.
 
kofeiiniturpa;n8572920 said:
The sad thing here, <clip> is that you are likely right and the game will be exactly that, a first person shooter with a loose perktree working as an on/off switchboard (this button unlocks somersaults, this one cartwheels, this allows you to attach a scope to your gun, this allows you try to hack a computer, and this one makes your red nose glow in the dark so you can see) <clip>. Nothing new under the sun, commonplace design principles turned into a commonplace game, <clip> But it also means there was never any need for the Cyberpunk 2020 franchise to be involved, a generic "inspired by" setting and system would've sufficed <clip>

I still haven't suggested that here. I concluded years ago that this will not be an oldschool game. What I'm asking for, is expanding the horizons on gameplay design from the homogenized new-school principles so that the game doesn't need to be just a "glorified Deus Ex" combined with Witcher 3 (and or GTA V, probably) as expected by a lot of people.
That it can be it's own thing that stands firmly on its own feet, <clip> .
My hope as well.
Will it be a full-out-PnP-like-RPG, no, that's impossible without direct human intervention in the form of a DM. Will it be "yet another shooter" ... let's hope to hell not. What it can, and should, be is some sort of hybrid, but when decisions have to be made between incompatible game design elements add both as options or err on the side of RPG. You can always make the franchise more of a shooter in later installments *cough* Fallout 4 *cough* but you can't usually make a game more of an RPG.
 
Last edited:
Might as well said this: CYBERPUNK 2077 can be the alternative world where people of present Earth can plug into and experience a rich created game by CD PROJEKT RED. Yes, having complex, thinking and not starting with gunfight would be a nice pace of the Cyberpunk experience. Was going to mention roles, figure out what you are good at or try them.
 
Suhiira;n8602510 said:
What it can, and should, be is some sort of hybrid, but when decisions have to be made between incompatible game design elements add both as options or err on the side of RPG

I've made a number of along-the-lines-of suggestions to that end which (the direction they point at) I would think would take into account the action and the RPG side, though indeed erring more towards the RPG. Neither perfectly, but sufficiently enough. It would probably be a horrible (conventional) 1st/3rd person shooter, but that's something I'd not lament at all.

I've said similiar things before, but there's nothing to say that hasn't been said a million times before, so might aswell try to be constructive among the bickering; so combat could work somewaht (!!!) like thus:

- You point the character to the right direction and decide when to pull the trigger. With each shot the weapong bounces off the center and then slowly or quickly (based on the PC's skill) finds its way back for another shot that goes somewhat reliably towards where you point (it's hipfire, so it won't ever be dead on unless you manage to push the barrell against the target). Not all that different from Deus Ex or VtMB.
- If you wish the character to aim, you press and hold RMB while pointing towards a target, and the character locks on to it for a few second period during which the reticle indicates your chances to hit via a timebar that will cancel out the focus shortly after it caps out at a point based on the PC's skill and other modifiers (this represents passing a turn to aim in the PnP) and you decide when to shoot (if it's a miss, the bullet does not disappear, but hits what ever is behind the target... and no tracers, so there'd be no curving bullets).
- You could select bodyparts as targets during the "focus" by moving the mouse in the corresponding direction (these have their own penalties).
- There could be a tactical pause to observe the situation, which could double as the "tactical mode", what ever kind of gameplay options that might bring (a whole new topic to talk about).
- All happens in real time (pause and tactical stuff aside) so you need to
--- maneuver and perform all the short term tactics, and shoot like hell in the right direction (if that's what you do); fast and furious, and wasteful,
--- or maneuver, possibly find cover, choose the target, choose the part of the body, time your shots, slower and more tactical and likely less wasteful
--- or you could go full on tactics, what ever that might mean
- Same kind of mechnics with melee and HtH
- Sniping would give you a wobbly (based on the PC's skill) scopelook and you could try if you'd manage to hit the trigger at the right time like in a shooter (and just like the free shooting before represented hipfire, this would represent sloppily sighting through the scope; again much like Deus Ex), or you could here too opt to let the character focus and make a full effort at aiming while your job is to time the shot.
- Character skill is paramount to success, but there's still action and reflexes needed for those who wish to play like that.

- And a thing to remember, in 2020 you could create a full on Cyberpunk version of Lucky Luke from the get go, which would make this system work -almost- identically to a normal shooter, yet would still allow slower, more tactical and more character driven gameplay to those who might wish it.
- You could even control the level of character skill influence via difficulty settings to further let the player tailor his experience.

And before anyone goes all out "oh my god that sounds fucking awful" or "it can't possibly work, it's like sitting on a million chairs at once" (like few times before with things I've suggested). Don't take it literally, this is merely spitballing some very raw concepts to possibly evoke some discussion and perhaps even for some reds to read and laugh what's that god damn fruitcake Finn on about this time, thinking he's a designer, bwahahahaha).
 
Last edited:
kofeiiniturpa;n8690510 said:
And before anyone goes all out "oh my god that sounds fucking awful" or "it can't possibly work, it's like sitting on a million chairs at once" (like few times before with things I've suggested). Don't take it literally, this is merely spitballing some very raw concepts to possibly evoke some discussion and perhaps even for some reds to read and laugh what's that god damn fruitcake Finn on about this time, thinking he's a designer, bwahahahaha).

BWAAHAHAHAHAHAH! Oh wait.

Actually, I like quite a bit of what you've suggested. Run it in beta a million times to smooth it out, make it fun, keep it cool-feeling, I think you'd have a shot at a winner.



 
I dont think that runs make game much more complex. Turn game may be very easy. Turns make game less dynamic.

Fair complex is the way to go. The most important is so player have options how to play, what to do, how to go.
Shooting everything is always the option. But we can talk our way into, or pretend we are working for target and go all James Bond on them. Or operate as netrunner or techie using proxy drones.
 
felixsylvaris;n8793120 said:
And there will be problems of two players going and doing completly different and opposite things. Divinity Original Sin 2 tries to do that. Not easy task.
There may be some sacrifizes in quality of quest and story, since it needs to be flexible and co-op friendly, not just going with best solution for SP.

Part of the reason they are making that kind of co-op to though is to try and create an actual way to play that game almost exactly like you could a pen and paper rpg... with a GM and everything. So they are not only trying to make a singleplayer game with co-op... they are trying to make a mode för the game which would feel even closer to like your playing a pen and paper rpg then even your regular cRPG does.

Here below is a 4 hour long actual game session where Matt Mercer is the GM (the voice actor who is the GM for the voice actors who play pnp rpg's on Geek and Sundry), where he leads Jesse Cox, Dodger, Strippen, and Bikeman (who I don't know who it is... the three others I know, since I have been a follower of theirs and the podcast they have frequent over the past several years The Co-Optional Podcast, which used to be called TGS Podcast, the one that Totalbiscuit runs).

You will se a lot of schenanigans going on from the players them selves, which some might find disruptive. But you have to remember here that the players (atleast 3 of them... but the 4th, Bikeman, seems to be that way to, or atleast adaptable to the siruation) are all well known for tending to do pretty random stuff like that, to screw with each other or what ever... they are used to that... and Matt Mercer does seem like a GM who is able to deal with players going off the rails like that.

Funny thing is that thanks to all of the players schenanigans, it actually shows you pretty well just how flexible the system actually can be to make on the fly changes to what ever is going on at any current moment. There are of course limits, your never going to be as free as you would be in a real PnP RPG, but your probably not going to get very much closer today in a pc-game.

More then anything else though, I found it really funny to watch, because I have always really liked the people of that group of friends surrounding Totalbiscuit. :)

 
Calistarius;n8803840 said:
Part of the reason they are making that kind of co-op to though is to try and create an actual way to play that game almost exactly like you could a pen and paper rpg... with a GM and everything. So they are not only trying to make a singleplayer game with co-op... they are trying to make a mode för the game which would feel even closer to like your playing a pen and paper rpg then even your regular cRPG does.

Here below is a 4 hour long actual game session where Matt Mercer is the GM (the voice actor who is the GM for the voice actors who play pnp rpg's on Geek and Sundry), where he leads Jesse Cox, Dodger, Strippen, and Bikeman (who I don't know who it is... the three others I know, since I have been a follower of theirs and the podcast they have frequent over the past several years The Co-Optional Podcast, which used to be called TGS Podcast, the one that Totalbiscuit runs).

You will se a lot of schenanigans going on from the players them selves, which some might find disruptive. But you have to remember here that the players (atleast 3 of them... but the 4th, Bikeman, seems to be that way to, or atleast adaptable to the siruation) are all well known for tending to do pretty random stuff like that, to screw with each other or what ever... they are used to that... and Matt Mercer does seem like a GM who is able to deal with players going off the rails like that.

Funny thing is that thanks to all of the players schenanigans, it actually shows you pretty well just how flexible the system actually can be to make on the fly changes to what ever is going on at any current moment. There are of course limits, your never going to be as free as you would be in a real PnP RPG, but your probably not going to get very much closer today in a pc-game.

More then anything else though, I found it really funny to watch, because I have always really liked the people of that group of friends surrounding Totalbiscuit. :)



Yes i seen the video and i am also a proud owner of the game as well.. can't wait the release!

I Really really hope cd project is planning to do something like that for multyplayer could be a dream!
 
I'm not sure what thread this fits best in, and don't think starting a new one for it makes sense, sooooooo ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UYDJNf4LyBs

Here we have an explanation of what happened to Andromeda and why. The why being more important (to my thinking) then the what. Because it should serve as a lesson to the would-be game developers out there.

It ain't as easy as you think!
 
Suhiira;n8911280 said:
I'm not sure what thread this fits best in, and don't think starting a new one for it makes sense, sooooooo ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UYDJNf4LyBs

Here we have an explanation of what happened to Andromeda and why. The why being more important (to my thinking) then the what. Because it should serve as a lesson to the would-be game developers out there.

It ain't as easy as you think!

And Extra Credits did a pretty good episode on the facial animations of the game (and games in general) as well. They even praise The Witcher 3, if I don't missremember, for their facial animations.
 

Guest 4149880

Guest
I hope Cyberpunk 2077's combat will be a bit like mix of Dark Souls, Bloodborne, Fallout and obviously Witcher 3.

But it could be a totally new style. People assume because guns are a big part of gameplay that it will be more or less a shooter but that might not be the case. It could be a slow passed style cover system, taking cover and locking onto enemies while acquiring targets. Not turn based but more like action points in real time that deplete depending on your combat actions. As you run low on action points the enemies progress and expend their action points to progress, then your actions point recover over a short time and you progress more, that way its keeps fights intense and prevents you from just run n gunning. And it would make use of the extremely lethal combat system and the weaponry being very dangerous so when you do use up most of your action points and lands some hits, you feel you done great deal of damage preventing the enemy from getting the upper hand. Also, gun play doesn't necessarily require aiming in 1st or 3rd person. It could be more like the lock on system, and hitting targets is based on your weapon stats and accuracy. If the game really is in both 1st and 3rd person perspectives, both modes might have very different play styles then the traditional FPS and 3rd person mechanics.
 
Top Bottom