Cyberpunk 2077 cannot be an empty sandbox

[LegateLaniusThe2nd]

Whether some people like it not, this game has to be attractive to TES/GTA audience...they're investing a lot into this, and that's one crazy gamble for a new IP from a developer that only just recently made a name for themselves.
And for all their flaws, the reason for popularity of both, is their world simulation experience...they pull you into their world like no other and make you it's resident( Witcher was great, but you were only "passing through").
Now, I don't believe in simplistic stereotyping ( popular equals "dumbed down"), espec concerning rpgs, so I think it's entirely possible to design 2077 as game with roleplaying/gameplay complexity at it's roots, but making them more accessible to wider audience.
UI design should be very organized, allow very clear, easy to follow information, and effects of stats/skills/etc should be logical and transparent. Also get rid of all the +x% fluff...in loot, rpg progression, weapons/armor variety, customization...focus on quality instead of pointless bloat.
Extensive difficulty customization ( better than easy/normal/hard...let player customize parameters) and added "hardcore" mode, would go a long way as well.

Well dont forget the Mass Effect fanbase third person shooter/rpg hybrid fanbase is important too espiecally after Andromedas disappointment. The void is open for CDPR. UI design should always be easy to use even if its a more hardcore game. Messy unorganized UI is a pet peeve. UI should also run smooth and not feel like its tanking like 15 fps when leaving and opening the menus(cough W3).

 

[kofeiiniturpa]

I'm not too fond of hordes of pointless and mostly out of context filler fluff activities the player tries once or twice and then never touches them again. All it does is it screams "We didn't have anything relevant to put there, sorry!"

I mean... Sure, if it's a big map there's room for momentary filler sideattractions, but the more important problem to solve - in my opinion - is how do you make the player feel connected and interested in the world in the minute to minute gameplay which in big-map games consists mostly empty trotting around (and the afore mentioned fluff activities that get old before you even try them) and looking around. How do you make that matter (to the player) at least on some level, what could create that kind of psychological effect that keeps the player engaged all the time? It certainly isn't random tennis match at the local court, or pizza delivery guy job to earn some change.

What could be some form of a narrative hook that keeps the player interested in what happens around him, maybe even make him a bit paranoid about what's happening (perhaps something to do with braindancing, for e.g.). What kind of mainquest would be of the sort that kind of follows with you and reacts to you (in one way or another) where ever you go even if you're not at it at the moment but just burning time in the bar; something that makes you pay a bit of attention to what you are doing at all times.

High levels of (characterbuild based) environmental interactivity and reactivity that all have some utility beyond "being able to do it". And precisely interaction based on the characterbuild that never says "no you can't even try", but that lets the character try and lets him fail if the dice won't hit. Even some mundane stuff like prying open a waterhydrant... just for fun to disorient nearby NPC's... cause a visual distraction that might give you enough time to escape pursuers or plan to counter... connect water with near by electricity source for you know what.... (just pure RPG attempt BOD+STR.Feat.(+ a possible tool like a pipewrench)+D10 and a little bit of luck; doesn't need cumbersome, boring and timeconsuming minigames). And that's just the tip of the tip of the iceberg.

Stuff to test and challenge the character you've built and progressed with little (and sometimes bigger) things all around the place - if wanted to, nothing's mandatory - and not just through combat or at key areas during missions.

It might sound a bit unorthodox in this day and age... I mean, dicerolls and shit? A character with some actual playable and testable character in a cRPG instead of just being the players virtual hand-puppet with some social experiment aspects? In 2017? Pfft right? Go back to the previous century, you relic! .... but that's the kind of shit I'd like to want to see. That's how I played 2020 back in the day, trying everything and enjoying how the system made me percieve it through my character.

But yeah... anyways.

 

[Suhiira]

I'm not too fond of hordes of pointless and mostly out of context filler fluff activities the player tries once or twice and then never touches them again. All it does is it screams "We didn't have anything relevant to put there, sorry!"

Or worthwhile ... the far too numerous collection quests in Dragon Age: Inquisition come to mind.

 

[Mebrilia]

I think the OP wanted to see complementary activities loyal to the setting not pointless fillers.... Dice poker in other witcher games were well integrated on the setting Gwent in witcher 3 was not... It was totally out of context at the point to break immersion in the same manner as "The dumb eating during combat mechanic"..

I don't see nothing wrong with complementary loyal to the setting activiting in the game... New Vegas handled this well.. Gambling, Betting...

Also please is an open world but is pointless have ambient filled of stuff if you can't even Sit on a bench or a chair... If you can't walk in to a Barman and order a drink... And for what? for immersion... that is an huge factor inside a RPG...

Witcher 3 was great... but i can't wonder but the limited interaction the player had to that fantastic world....

Again i am not talking about filler content...

Collect 15 of that.... get 59 of this... Archievement

I am talking about small things and side activities that can make the world more believable and radiant of life...

 

[Lisbeth_Salander]

Also please is an open world but is pointless have ambient filled of stuff if you can't even Sit on a bench or a chair... If you can't walk in to a Barman and order a drink... And for what? for immersion... that is an huge factor inside a RPG...

I am talking about small things and side activities that can make the world more believable and radiant of life...

I agree. Mundane interactions have great impact on immersion even if they don't have such a big purpouse in the game. I know most interactions and activities should "fit" into that universe and also have consequences in that world, but it will serve great for immersion if it's possible for the player to enter a bar, sit down, and after a few drinks wipe out his gun and send everybody to hell.

 

[Riven-Twain]

Where's the fun in an empty sandbox? Isn't that just a regular box? They should at least put some sand in it -- along with sandpaper, sandblasters, sandstorms, sand-painting, sandbags, sand-dollars, sand-dunes, sandwiches, and, for those who enjoy speed-runs, quicksand. In fact, they might as well just call it SanderpunkP2500.

 

[AdamTaylor]

I would love to see an assortment of side-activities that fit in well with the world and your specific role.

So yes, if you're a cop, you should be able to have activities that fit. Responding to crime, investigating scenes, shaking down gangers, taking bribes, etc.
You wouldn't really play a beat cop in the game, because that would honestly be a full time job and really stop you doing much else in the game. But some more freelance detectivework would be neat.

As a musician you could play at various clubs and stuff. Build yourself a rep, get into bigger venues. Maybe even sign a record deal or something similar.

A ganger could help defend territory, collect protection money, fight other gangs, do public work to win PR for their gang, etc.

And there should be a bunch of generic activities that anyone can take part in. Gambling, driving people around, escort/bodyguard duty, theft (making sure you're not caught which could destroy your job as a cop for example, but not hurt as much if you're a ganger).

 

[wr3zzz]

OP kinda pre-qualified the scope of discussion by using the word "empty". The only developers who purposefully build "empty" sandboxes are sim game developers. No RPG or action game developers want their worlds to be empty.

Bethesda games all felt empty without mods because the studio is terrible at characters and stingy with narratives but their games' moddability allow players to fill up the worlds as much or as little as they wish so the extra space is actually desirable and why their games have such ridiculously long tails.

Rockstar on the other hand is very good at building narrative but it also detracts the open play somewhat in that it almost doesn't matter if the game is a sandbox. Other developers that are strong at character building and storytelling such as the old Bioware and CDPR don't really need open world sandboxes.

 

[LegateLaniusThe2nd]

Ah, this argument. "Do it like the others, if you want to win."

Is that how Witcher 2 did so well? And Witcher 3? I don't think so. Interestingly, one of Witcher 3's biggest flaws was a classic open-world blandness - the POIs of pointlessness.

You may have been "passing through" in Witcher. For me and everyone else I know who played the games -everyone- they were much more immersive than either TES "Have you thought of joining the College of Winterhold" or Rockstar's Killing Spree City games of little to no actual consequences.

In the Witcher series, the choices I made, big to small, mattered. I was very much in a responsive world, being a denizen of that world. Not just being Me with a Gun or Magics.

And it was Witcher 2 that made a name for them. Witcher 3 took them into the top level of gaming companies in terms of sales, fame and awards, but they got so much coverage because Witcher 2 did so well.

No, I think CDPR will try to make the game attractive by following the design principles laid down in Witchers 1-3: Good writing, great plot, interesting characters, fun gameplay, exciting combat, freedom of choice and consequences thereof, excellent graphics and sound.

If the GTA/TES crowd likes that, great. If not, well, CDPR isn't trying to become Rockstar or Bethesda. They are already CDPR.

Fun gameplay and exciting combat has yet to be seen in CDPR games. In fact their lagging behind pretty badly in this end.

 

[Hoplite_22]

Fun game play and exciting combat has yet to be seen in CDPR games. In fact their lagging behind pretty badly in this end.

Compared to whom in the RPG space? because right now they pretty much universally have fucking terrible combat, with a sliding scale to antique shit baggery for turn based games.

if you are referring to CoD or something similar you are rolling down the wrong road since this was never going to be a CoD style game. That's not what CDPR do.

 

[kofeiiniturpa]

What would you consider "good RPG combat"; specifically RPG; anyway?

 

[Lisbeth_Salander]

Compared to whom in the RPG space? because right now they pretty much universally have fucking terrible combat, with a sliding scale to antique shit baggery for turn based games.

if you are referring to CoD or something similar you are rolling down the wrong road since this was never going to be a CoD style game. That's not what CDPR do.

What would you consider "good RPG combat"; specifically RPG; anyway?

Critical thinking is important even if it’s towards something we love. A great way to get closer to perfection is not to ignore its negative points.

Dark Souls is one of the greatest examples of Rpgs with good gameplay. It was great because it focused not only on the player, but on the enemies too. And I’m not talking about sponge damage enemies (even though it had), but about the good aspect of the game that was its smart AI which made it greatly challenging.

Most enemies in Dark Souls: changed tactics depending of your attacks; deflected your attacks and then counter attacked; ran towards you if you were far away and then attacked with a mighty blow; and if you used magic or a healing potion (both makes your character stops with an animation) the enemies then realized this and attacked as fast as possible since you were unguarded; and these are only a few examples.

The AI adapted to some of the player’s tactics. This didn’t happened a lot in The Witcher 3, at least not at this level.

I know what you’re all thinking. “Cyberpunk 2077 can’t be dependent on player’s abilities, since it is a rpg it should be 100% reliant on the main character skills.”

I disagree because this Dark Souls characteristic may be fundamental if CP2077 is going to be an action rpg, especially in higher difficulties. Or CDPR could simply make a game based in both player's abilities and character skills.

 

[Suhiira]

I know what you’re all thinking. “Cyberpunk 2077 can’t be dependent on player’s abilities, since it is a rpg it should be 100% reliant on the main character skills.”

I disagree because this Dark Souls characteristic may be fundamental if CP2077 is going to be an action rpg, especially in higher difficulties. Or CDPR could simply make a game based in both player's abilities and character skills.

By all means, if it's going to be an action game (i.e. RPG light to mere lip service) then player skills must take priority, because the player is the character, as in Dark Souls, Doom, etc. etc. etc.
On the other hand, if it's going to be a "true" RPG then no, you'll be playing as a character not as yourself, with that characters stats and skills, so action game combat would be inappropriate.

So it depends on CDPRs intended audience ... Action gamers or RPG gamers.

 

[Rawls]

I disagree because this Dark Souls characteristic may be fundamental if CP2077 is going to be an action rpg, especially in higher difficulties. Or CDPR could simply make a game based in both player's abilities and character skills.

So it depends on CDPRs intended audience ... Action gamers or RPG gamers.

I hope the game will be based both on player skill and on character skills. I agree that something like Dark Souls is probably more combat focused than I would prefer, as an RPG should first be about the Characters, stories, world and choices. However, what you do while exploring the world, making choices, meeting characters and unraveling the stories is also important. Thus action combat makes the experience of the RPG more enjoyable IMO from one encounter to the next. Both of these elements are necessary to prevent making the "sandbox" feel empty.

If it's totally stat based, the encounters can turn monotonous after awhile for me. Making the combat more action based results in more engaging gameplay between the great conversations, awesome story beats, difficult choices and etc. If you focus too much on the combat being all player skill though, you miss out on the choices that effect the gameplay. Especially if there are going to be roles in the game, different play styles need to feel different. Thus some of the gameplay has to be stat based.

Although it lacked in dialogue and had other problems, ME:A I thought did a good job of blending RPG elements and action combat. You could develop the PC to feel distinct based on stats, but almost every skill actually did something and the combat was enjoyable (although had far too few enemy types for my tastes). That's one important piece of making the sandbox feel engaging and immersive.

But that's really just one piece of it. Interesting settings, making sure you achieve the correct balance of points of interest density, solid and non-repetitive quest design are also hugely important. Basically it's really hard to do. But based on prior games, I think CDPR can do it. I didn't think TW3 felt like an empty sandbox. I agree with what Sard said a few pages back. Take what they did in the Witcher series, blend it into the existing CP 2020 mechanics, make sure to include decent stealth, gun play, vehicle elements and a few other things. No need to reinvent who they've been.

 

[kofeiiniturpa]

I can't even begin to descrbe how much I've grown to loathe the on going "Fucking Dark Souls, brah! Cowabunga!" trend that's going on everywhere, that everything has to emulate what those games do and the developers are all too eager to produce (just count all the mainstream RPG releases that play exactly alike, and compare to the number of other candidates). Every RPG needs to be somehow related to Dark Souls because hey, Dark Souls' the real shit, yeah baby, a model RPG of the ages. Kill it with fucking fire already.

Ok, now that I got that out of my system and am calm as a pie again.... Action RPG need not mean that it's an action game with some RPG credentials somewhere down there. It can well be an RPG with some action elements -- a game that does not try to be an awsome action game by compromising it's RPG core and premise of everyone being on the same starting line because the cahracterbuild is what directs the gameplay for that - like they nearly always do [compromise those things] - yet still functions on a basic level such that it can be called "action" RPG by the merit of the game working faster and with more direct player input than a traditional RPG like Fallout or Planescape: Torment.

Think about something along the lines of New Vegas with a bit slower overall pace, more emphasis on skills governing accuracy and scoring hits (vice damage) in combat, VATS made an actually sophisticated and comprehensive gameplay tool (an actual combat mode), and few more skills and increased amount of skill uses all around the place (environment, items, NPC's). Not an ideal shooter or action game by any stretch of the word, but very high grade "action" RPG.


EDIT - On a somewhat related note, and in case someone's interested.... There's a Tim Cain conference speech from the recent Reboot conference labeled "Building a Better RPG". I definitely do not agree with everything he has to say, but he does make an overall interesting case (it starts roughly at 19 minute mark, if the link makes a weird jump further...).

https://www.twitch.tv/videos/137273761

 

[Lisbeth_Salander]

Oh, the old “if something is popular therefore it’s bad” argument.

Yeah, VATS destroyed all the challenge of the combat system and CP2077 doesn’t need to be a 100% action ““”””RPG””””” without a soul. But I hope you’re not implying that enemies with smart and challenging AI would be capable of “compromising it's RPG core and premise.”


Now spot the difference between this…

"Fucking Dark Souls, brah! Cowabunga! […] Every RPG needs to be somehow related to Dark Souls because hey, Dark Souls' the real shit, yeah baby, a model RPG of the ages.”

…and this:

“Dark Souls […] was great because it focused not only on the player, but on the enemies too. And I’m not talking about sponge damage enemies (even though it had), but about the good aspect of the game that was its smart AI which made it greatly challenging. Most enemies in Dark Souls: changed tactics depending of your attacks; deflected your attacks and then counter attacked; ran towards you if you were far away and then attacked with a mighty blow; and if you used magic or a healing potion (both makes your character stops with an animation) the enemies then realized this and attacked as fast as possible since you were unguarded; and these are only a few examples. The AI adapted to some of the player’s tactics.”

What really disappoints me is that you didn’t explain why the “smart AI” was bad. You didn’t explain why the fact that “many” rpgs are being inspired by Dark Souls is a bad thing either.

I used to hate people who said Dark Souls had a challenging gameplay, until I played the game and realized they were right.
It’s possible for Cyberpunk 2077 to be an original true RPG while still being inspired by other games.

 

[Suhiira]

If it's totally stat based, the encounters can turn monotonous after awhile for me. Making the combat more action based results in more engaging gameplay between the great conversations, awesome story beats, difficult choices and etc. If you focus too much on the combat being all player skill though, you miss out on the choices that effect the gameplay. Especially if there are going to be roles in the game, different play styles need to feel different. Thus some of the gameplay has to be stat based.

Although it lacked in dialogue and had other problems, ME:A I thought did a good job of blending RPG elements and action combat. You could develop the PC to feel distinct based on stats, but almost every skill actually did something and the combat was enjoyable (although had far too few enemy types for my tastes). That's one important piece of making the sandbox feel engaging and immersive.

My "problem" is that with games like ME: A "Skills" consist almost entirely of new or augmented combat abilities. And it's virtually impossible for a player who lacks the ability to react at superhuman speeds to play a Solo with augmented reflexes, or for a person that can't mouse click on the right pixel at the precise moment to play a sniper. Also there are no such thing as a characters ability (or lack of) to persuade others, it's merely a matter of the player selecting the desired dialog option(s).
Ultimately you're not playing a character with their unique skills (or lack thereof) and (dis)advantages. You're just you playing a game.

 

[Suhiira]

Wrong button ... I quoted myself ...

 

[Rawls]

My "problem" is that with games like ME: A "Skills" consist almost entirely of new or augmented combat abilities. And it's virtually impossible for a player who lacks the ability to react at superhuman speeds to play a Solo with augmented reflexes, or for a person that can't mouse click on the right pixel at the precise moment to play a sniper. Also there are no such thing as a characters ability (or lack of) to persuade others, it's merely a matter of the player selecting the desired dialog option(s). Ultimately you're not playing a character with their unique skills (or lack thereof) and (dis)advantages. You're just you playing a game.

I think there are ways to accommodate different roles. You could do something like adrenaline rush in ME3 (sorry to keep referencing that series - I promise I play other games) to simulate the enhanced reflexes of a Solo. It is true that one will always have to aim the gun to hit a shot. I don't know of a way around that if you want to actually play gun combat. So I concede that point. Regarding persuasion stats, they can be incorporated into a dialogue system where the player can choose multiple responses. Different options could require different persuasion difficulties, some of which are only likely to work if you have skill points invested in persuasion-y skills.

I am by no means the greatest at combat (I normally play on normal or hard - and have never completed a game on the highest difficulty to my recollection - SHAME). However, the moment to moment of a game is more interesting and immersive if your actively involved in the combat, not just passively watching as your build knocks down the health bar of your opponent(s). I think that's where Lisbeth is coming from too - feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. Making the enemies varied and adaptive to you play style is fun. Variety is the spice of life and all that. I'm not a Dark Souls fan, but there is value in enemies that adapt to you. From what I've seen of it (I haven't played it yet) Horizon: Zero Dawn is another example of this. Ultimately, I suppose it just comes down to I like relying on my skills to some degree in combat. I think that stats are important too because part of building your character is building how the character approaches any given situation ... which makes stats vitally important. I just think it's optimal to blend stats with player skill.

Don't get me wrong, I strongly desire the game to be based around CP 2020's core systems ... just blended into something with the combat vibe of the best modern video games. And again that's centrally related to the idea of keeping the game from feeling empty. If you have the mostly stat based encounters over and over in an open world ... it gets repetitive for me - which makes the world feel hollow. Like you're just going through the motions while you get to your next spot. The elements of challenge and variety between story beats helps a lot IMO.

EDIT: I would also personally really enjoy some complicated puzzles that require thought ... so it's not just combat, stealth and conversation.

It’s possible for Cyberpunk 2077 to be an original true RPG while still being inspired by other games.

Agreed.

 

[kofeiiniturpa]

Oh, the old “if something is popular therefore it’s bad” argument.

No. That's not the argument. I've never done that, and I never will because it makes no sense.
On that note, though - for a bit of a tangent - an argument could be made that being popular does not mean something's of good quality (that's what I hear more often) and the reasons can be explained, but that's entirely different from saying "popular, therefore bad" as a general statement.

I wasn't jesting, Dark Souls being brought up all the time everytwhere is annoying (the series is seriously overrated), but I thought the blatant hyperbole and the nigh exploding midget in my post would've made it clear it's not written with an entirely straight face.

You didn’t explain why the fact that “many” rpgs are being inspired by Dark Souls is a bad thing either.

Too much is too much. It has created a situation where everything even newly revealed already feels old when you see it in motion.

It’s possible for Cyberpunk 2077 to be an original true RPG while still being inspired by other games.

Of course it is.

I'd say the dilemma is where that inspiration should be taken from.