Factions and allying with them

[CTPhipps]

Exactly. If you are going to have choice and consequences, you cannot do everything in-game. Nope. You make choices, they open up some things and lock off others. Witcher 2 and 3 did this, I expect CP to do the same.

I confess, I felt locking off the Roche/Iorveth paths was a mistake and Geralt should have been able to play the Iorveth path after he left for Saskia's town with Zoltan,

This is totally cool and actually what Edgerunners ( word for most cyberpunk player characters) actually do. You can even push it too far if you hide it somehow.

That said, some things will instantly be a problem. You work for Arasaka on your first job, doing some online follow-up to a missing shipment, no big deal. You work for Arasaka on your first job and murder a Militech junior assistant VP getting off the 'train, real problem. You better either hide that or hope Arasaka didn't hire you just so they could shop you out.

That is true.

Willowhugger The Strange Days thing is less about SD and more CDPR's interest in the Brain Dance, which of course massively predates the movie. By nearly a decade. More, if you realise the SD borrowed from several key cyberpunk concepts. So the 'Dance is well-known to anyone who played CP2020, which CDPR did, back in the day.

Oddly, my more Cyberpunk 2020 fans have told me the braindancing stuff was going to be an extrapolation of technology from 2020 versus something there all along.

 

[Sardukhar]

I confess, I felt locking off the Roche/Iorveth paths was a mistake and Geralt should have been able to play the Iorveth path after he left for Saskia's town with Zoltan,

BLASPHEMY.

It did take me two years to get around to playing that whole questline/segment, though. So you have a point.

I think locking off -that much- content is maybe not a great idea. I prefer how they alter results in existing content in W3, like who shows up to defend Kaer Morhen, for example. Like to see a lot more of that.

Oddly, my more Cyberpunk 2020 fans have told me the braindancing stuff was going to be an extrapolation of technology from 2020 versus something there all along.

Nope. The 'Dance is right in the core book from the late 80s-early 90s. The Rockerboy sourcebook released in 1989 has a whole (cool) section on 'Dancers as player characters as well as a Day In The Life from one of the most popular, Slade McCallahan.

Actually a pretty neat idea, especially Back In The Day - play someone who records everything they go through and that later becomes the "Movie" everyone else enjoys, ( watered down and edited for security, of course).

Kind of wanted to run a campaign like that. You know, you ( and perhaps other PCs, although they also fill other roles) play a Brad Pitt or Tom Cruise who actually -does- all that stuff.

Anyway, have your CP2020 contacts flogged. The Rockerboy sourcebook was actually written for CP2013, even before CP2020 came out.

 

[Odinsauge]

I confess, I felt locking off the Roche/Iorveth paths was a mistake and Geralt should have been able to play the Iorveth path after he left for Saskia's town with Zoltan,

BLASPHEMY.

It did take me two years to get around to playing that whole questline/segment, though. So you have a point.

I think locking off -that much- content is maybe not a great idea. I prefer how they alter results in existing content in W3, like who shows up to defend Kaer Morhen, for example. Like to see a lot more of that.

When CDPR advertised TW2 they said that depending on you choice, ACT 2 will be completely different, with a different story and a different map.
In my first play-through I sided with Roche and when I came to Vergen it was ok for me that I can't do much here, although it felt a bit strange because there was this huge town and the surroundings. I started to realize that there is only that one level and there are just 2 different starting points.

After my second play-through and knowing both parts I thought it is ok how they have done it although it felt a bit unnatural that I have to go to the other side but can't do quest there.

 

[CTPhipps]

When CDPR advertised TW2 they said that depending on you choice, ACT 2 will be completely different, with a different story and a different map.
In my first play-through I sided with Roche and when I came to Vergen it was ok for me that I can't do much here, although it felt a bit strange because there was this huge town and the surroundings. I started to realize that there is only that one level and there are just 2 different starting points.

After my second play-through and knowing both parts I thought it is ok how they have done it although it felt a bit unnatural that I have to go to the other side but can't do quest there.

It was an experiment but one I don't think quite worked out.

I think it led to people missing a large part of the game's awesomeness since they didn't want to replay the first act.

 

[Suhiira]

I think it led to people missing a large part of the game's awesomeness since they didn't want to replay the first act.

Yes and no. Lot's of people only care about "beating the game" and aren't all that interested in the role-play aspects, and probably aren't going to replay a game just to see where other choices may have led. Yeah, they miss the "awesomeness", but they probably don't really care.

And guess what, I don't think CDPR cares that much either. Those people still bought a copy of the game, still played and probably enjoyed it, and probably will never post a comment or critique. CDPR makes their games for the RPG fans, the folks that will explore the options, play the game more then once, will post about their experience. And the same folks that bought the game will buy the next one CDPR puts out based on those (generally) glowing responses.

 

[CTPhipps]

Yes and no. Lot's of people only care about "beating the game" and aren't all that interested in the role-play aspects, and probably aren't going to replay a game just to see where other choices may have led. Yeah, they miss the "awesomeness", but they probably don't really care.

And guess what, I don't think CDPR cares that much either. Those people still bought a copy of the game, still played and probably enjoyed it, and probably will never post a comment or critique. CDPR makes their games for the RPG fans, the folks that will explore the options, play the game more then once, will post about their experience. And the same folks that bought the game will buy the next one CDPR puts out based on those (generally) glowing responses.

Yes, and I think it's better to allow the PCs to experience the full game.

I appreciate consequences but I see a fundamental difference between:

* Kill Dijkstra or Roche/Ves/Thaler by inaction

and

* Miss an entire act of the game.

On my end, I've mentioned V:TM:B as my ideal for how to handle factions but I think an even better example is to go BACK in time with the Witcher series to the Scoia'tael and the Order of the Flaming Rose. Siding with one side or the other had serious consequences for the game as well as changed dialogue but didn't deprive you of gameplay either. It also had a lot of interesting moral and philosophical dilemmas attached to it.

Team Flaming Rose, FTW, btw.

 

[Odinsauge]

Yes, and I think it's better to allow the PCs to experience the full game.

I appreciate consequences but I see a fundamental difference between:

* Kill Dijkstra or Roche/Ves/Thaler by inaction

and

* Miss an entire act of the game.

On my end, I've mentioned V:TM:B as my ideal for how to handle factions but I think an even better example is to go BACK in time with the Witcher series to the Scoia'tael and the Order of the Flaming Rose. Siding with one side or the other had serious consequences for the game as well as changed dialogue but didn't deprive you of gameplay either. It also had a lot of interesting moral and philosophical dilemmas attached to it.

Team Flaming Rose, FTW, btw.

When I was younger I was also on this "I want to experience the whole game" side. E.g. It bothered me a lot that I couldn't do the personal quest of all my followers in Tales of Symphonia (GC) or get all the alternative clothes. I always wanted 100% in one play-through.

Now I see it a bit different. I really liked TW2 although it was a bit short and I miss big parts per play-through. But the big difference in Act 2 and the smaller differences in Act 3 (help your ally or help Triss), made it very interesting to see the other way and it really made me want to play it several times.

For TW3 I don't have the urgent need to play it again. Sure the are differences but only smaller ones. And the game itself is to big to play it again to see small changes. Also most of the decisions i would do again because I'm to connected with the characters to choose something that I don't agree with just to see what's the outcome.

The main choices in TW2 felt completely neutral to me, the was no bigger sympathy for one option over another. It was really hard to choose.

In TW3 most of the decisions were easy, only the "spirit under the tree" decision was a bit hard but only because I couldn't predict the outcome and not because of an emotional bond.

 

[CTPhipps]

I think the Witcher 3 is essentially so very large it qualifies as like four or five games. Blood and Wine won the Best RPG award of Game Insider for 2016 because it was, despite being an expansion, as large as a normal video game.

I'd like Cyberpunk 2077 to be large enough that we can spend as much time navigating that world.

Replay value doesn't really interest me if it's that large.

 

[Rawls]

So to express my hopes about factions, first I think I should say what I hope the main narrative thrust is because it colors my opinions on this subject. I do not want CP2077 to be a story about beating the man or becoming all powerful, because it's a largely dystopian setting with all the hi-tech lo-life themes. I want the main story to focus around helping a small group of npcs (your "family") in a cruel world. I would like the npcs who become your "family" to vary depending on your choices, and what happens to them to vary depending on your chocies. By focusing on characters in this way, you will make each of the stories more intimate, more meaningful, and more in line with cyberpunk (the genre - not the series specifically) themes. There will still be a main "quest" where you have to overcome the odds, but the result will not be "you've freed the people and they all lived happily ever." It should be, "You and some of the people you care about got the main mission done, escaped by the skin of your teeth, and will live to struggle on another day."

So that opinion largely flavors my opinion on this topic. I think that you should be able to join several factions. However, joining one faction effects another factions opinion of you. Progressing in one faction will effect other factions opinions of you. You can join multiple factions, but once you get to a certain point with one, it could lock you out from another. There are some factions that get along, and some that don't. Just joining a faction might lock you out from some other (i.e. rival gangs). The importance of the faction(s) you are in is that it effects the NPCs who become your "family." The main quest remains largely the same, but who does it with you can change. You can also choose to go without joining any faction, but this will of course lock out certain characters. If I thought about it some more I think I could probably give a more coherent opinion on the matter, but this is all I have for now.

This type of system would mean that the main quest is available to any faction or class of character. What changes the journey is who is with you and the choices you make along the way.

 

[Odinsauge]

This type of system would mean that the main quest is available to any faction or class of character. What changes the journey is who is with you and the choices you make along the way.

Sounds good, but I would go a bit further and would alter some parts of the main quest depending on whom you joined. Sure the main goal is the same but I'd like to go different ways to reach it. I think there would also fit an ending like where you think you are going to do something for greater goods but it turns out that you were tricked/betrayed and you maybe saved you 'family' but for others the threat is still there/you couldn't save all of the people.

 

[CTPhipps]

My general hope for the game is that it'll have a sort of Grand Theft Auto IV progression.

Yes, IV, not V.

Remember IV?

Hear me out. Nico Bellic starts in the slums of Liberty City working for his cousin's crappy cab company when he decides to get involved in a side business as a hitman that eventually gets him involved with the Russian mafia. Things go pear shaped, as they usually do on the Edge, and then he ends up moving to a variety of other players while having thoroughly pissed off his first employers and made himself some dire enemies.

Nico ends up working for the Jersey Mob, a local drug queen, the actual New York mob, some old school gangbangers, and so on.

Eventually, he has friends and enemies all over town.

I think it'd be awesome to be able to do that sort of storyline with the ability to arrange the plot as you see fit. One thing I really enjoyed about GTA IV was the fact it ended with Nico going from being a really poor hitman to a guy who was potentially extremely rich but still had to work for a living. I think the idea of starting with the slums and gradually working your way up to being a corporate samurai or "Fixer" seems like a good level of progression for the game.

Except, of course, you may choose to go against the corporations and end up as one of their bitterest enemies.

 

[Sardukhar]

My general hope for the game is that it'll have a sort of Grand Theft Auto IV progression.

Yes, IV, not V.

I would have no problem with such a (improved, deeper) system. I liked IV better anyway and the sense of turf-control was stronger than in V.

 

[CTPhipps]

Yeah, for my first character I want to have a guy who eventually becomes an elegant suit 47-like character working for the megacorporations.

However, for my second, I'll go down and dirty punk.

 

[Sardukhar]

Yeah, for my first character I want to have a guy who eventually becomes an elegant suit 47-like character working for the megacorporations.

However, for my second, I'll go down and dirty punk.

Oooh! I have -no idea- how I'm going to go. On the one hand, I want to create my favourite Cpunk character, because I am a giant, frothing NERD. On the other hand, it's going to be really tempting to try a Cop or a Corp or a Rockerboy or a Netrunner. Netrunner will be especially dependent on how they work the Net, of course. Same for Rockerboy and Special Abilities.

How I ally with the Corps or Gangs or Cops is going to depend on the setting, the depth of faction, (working for Arasaka, ugh. But IE is okay-ish, also SovOil because Russian!) and consequences for same.

CSWAT is very cool, but what if there is an ultra-awesome Bloodrazors questline? I know, second playthrough, but still. So hard to choose!

And then there are the different factions inside factions. I already mentioned the different Corps and of course different gangs, but the Cops have the fairly corrupt NCPD, the well-armed and also corruptish SWAT, the uninterested-in-anything-not-shooting-cyborgs MAX-TAC, the uncorruptible Harbour Police and the separate but still Cops Corporate Police.

So. Many. Choices.

 

[Suhiira]

I'll probably try to recreate my favorite CP2020 character, a Netrunner with good B&E abilities. Basically a burgler that can break into where what she wants to hack is without the need for a team.

 

[Calistarius]

I would most likelly go something like a former Soldier gone Mercenary, who will probably only work for the people who he deem as/consider to be... "good"... not that there really is such a thing in a game like Cyberpunk... but I am sure there would be atleast a few factions who I feel would be "nicer" then most of the others. XD

 

[kofeiiniturpa]

If it is possible to play as an opportunistic and manipulative corp, I would try it.

 

[Suhiira]

If it is possible to play as an opportunistic and manipulative corp, I would try it.

Probably try a Solo for a 2nd playthru then a Corp named Richard (Dick) Head on a 3rd just to see how manipulative and self-serving the game allows you to be, the kind of that makes Burke from Aliens look like nice guy.

 

[atomowyturysta]

If there are factions, and I believe they will be, and if they are joinable, I hope the Reds will look at Elder Scrolls and Fallout 3/4, and see how it should not be done. But in any case, I'm resting assured that if it comes to making games, the Reds know what they are doing.

 

[Sardukhar]

But in any case, I'm resting assured that if it comes to making games, the Reds know what they are doing.

They do, but they make mistakes. The underwater-crossbow thing in W3, the POI blandness, the overlevelled issue by level 15-20 or so if you weren't on Death March...other stuff.

Not that this is a Witcher 3 thread, but yeah, let's hope the factions are much deeper and the gameplay to do with them is much deeper than Skyrim or FO3-4.