Suhiira;n10384742 said:
It is impossible to make a noncombat playthrough in Fallout 1&2 without exploiting bugs.
I there is something to be learned from Fallout 1&2 though, is that great sound design for weapons and enemies death screams and visceral death animations greatly improve the feel of the combat
Grotesque;n10391832 said:
http://www.rpgcodex.net/forums/index.php?threads/lets-play-fallout-2-as-a-pacifist.83473/
Sardukhar;n10393012 said:
This is fantastic!
This is something I think not everybody understands regarding the whole "non lethal playthrough" thing. You don't HAVE to take on every mission, and you actually shouldn't do so if you're roleplaying a character.
In a Bethesda RPG, would a pacifist thief really become a Dark Brotherhood assassin? Would they really advance the thief storyline and kill people? Heck, do they even have the ambitions to advance the storyline and become grandmaster? What if they just want to do thief-y missions from the "radiant" quest givers?
In 2077, if someone gives you a side mission to kill someone, you should be able to turn it down if you don't want to do it. You could in TW3 (of course, fighting was inevitable there and it probably will be inevitable at some points in 2077... whether you can run away or not is another matter).
People have this concept that in order for a non lethal run to be possible, ever single mission has to be non-lethal. Not so at all. In real life, you don't take every single task or job that is offered to you, nor should your character if you're going for maximum RP.
Freedom of choice should be freedom to take or ignore missions as you see fit, within reason. Obviously, CDPR cannot cater to every possible whim and desire in the main story.
Loving that playthrough so far, thanks for the link. I miss the days when forum lets plays were text and image-based... They were hilarious.
Snowflakez;n10396322 said:
So true! In the Complete It All era, the idea of -not- taking a "quest" or mission seems ludicrous. This is why, despite my frequent arguments that people are far too harsh on F3 and F4, I do agree they are role-playing lite.
A good RPG lets you play a character the way you hope to. I mean, there will be gaps in PnP and CRPG both, but if you have an idea of your character (sneaky, lying, tricksy Hobbits) a deep RPG will let you play as that Hobbits. Fairly closely, anyway.
I also deplore the commonality of violence. It makes it mundane. Not only does that break immersion for me, but it also renders my glorious successes against bad odds equally mundane.
Based on what I've heard of the game thus far, I think violence should be a viable why to get things done but it should of course have consequences like a bounty and having the cops be on the look out for you. Ultimately I think that stealth, guns blazing, charismatic, intimidation, etc should all be great in some places and then hard in other places. For example it would be easier to just blast your way through poor areas without much care but then because you had done that, now in higher class areas with more protection It will be harder due to the authoritys knowing you so you have to use other ways to complete missions because of how you've done previous ones. Then of course the people you meet on the way can help you with things based in your city rep and etc.
In Cyberpunk, 8 damage pts in one body part mean a dismemberment.
Otherwise, how will you need any member replacement?
I expect blood, gore and dismemberment to a large level, exploding heads, blood splatter and fist fights turning in blood bath (thanks for the slashers).
(What about cuting in a corpse to steal some organs to sell to the body bank?)
Violence is a core point of cyberpunk, it depicts a violent society.
In Neuromancer Molly use to brutally break bones and slash flesh, in Hardwired, Sarah dismembers and disfigure her attackers to leave a message to others "Don't fuck with me".
How do you plan on showing an society gone inhuman and ultraviolent without violence?
Cyberpunk is the society gone to the crapper, the non-violent person are either rich or dead or simply do they best to stay off the street (like trying to have a business and survive a decent way), but I'd expect the rest to be kinda batshit crazy.
Not saying it needs to be purely violent "to be violent", but why would you need Robocop in Detroit if the criminality and people aren't ultra-violent?
Do you think you'd talk those crackheads punks out of shooting your face for your money?
Night City (taken from the lore book "home of the brave") is the state in 2020 with the most homeless people, so imagine how many lost souls are around, they'd have nothing to lose, lots of crimes and violence going around, because that's how it's going in that kind of settings.
The ultraviolence (the more, the better), would only sets the tone, that world isn't a cool place to be, natural selection at it's finest.
Cyberpunk (2020), isn't ghost in the shell or Blade Runner (or maybe, just for the whole art design part), the social side is closer to Robocop, gangs are violent, most people live in the street because not other option for most of them (coffins are cheap, but yeah it's still money), they take drugs and attack each other for food or whatever, Combat Zone are called like that for a reason.
Ever gone to place with lots of poor people, often around train/bus stations, some dirty, living in a cardboard and walking in circle screaming at themselves in a monologue conversation? That you can tell the dude is either high, psychotic or both
Walking a few meters, having 2,3,4 dudes walking to you "Hey dude? want some fix?", etc...
Sure, you have some store, and lil things like that, to keep the place alive, a grocery, but most people just turn insane in those living conditions, or are forced to do nasty shits to get a living (doubt people join gangs for the fun of it, most are in either because they're dumb, or just have only that to keep them out of danger, the pack keeps you safe, reasons gangs are a thing)
It's already like that today, it would only get worse and meaner in a setting such as Cyberpunk when majority of the people would be in that situation (sure, some people would have their shit together, but most people would've known ONLY that their whole life, the street and the violence, like the kids growing in war zone)
Sure, I'm not talking about a "all the way ultraviolent" etc...
You'll meet companion and "casual people" to get along with.
But once in the street, you should "Feel" the sadness, the despair and the crazyness of that ultra-capitalist world, a world were if you have nothing YOU ARE NOTHING. Wouldn't you turn batshit crazy in a world like that? Where your life have no point beside trying to survive with other people ready to beat you up for what you have? (being homeless is freaking hard guys, between "wealthy" people making fun of you, other bums trying to fuck you up, and then the only escape you can have from that is drug or things like that)
Once in the street you can't get a decent job, because you need a phone, an adress, etc... things that you can't get if you're living on the pavement.
That's how you starts to get deshumanized and become more "animal", I've seen it and it's very heartbreaking, seriously.
Just think about all that, that's the "reality" of Cyberpunk 2020, things are almost the same, if not worse, in 2077.
The violence isn't just 'bam you're dead", I want that "capitalist" violence to be felt when I hang around Night City, those people aren't poor and dirty because they want to (no one want to end up like that, no one...), it's the way the things are going that forces people in those condition, and that's what I want to feel with Cyberpunk 2077, something very menacing.
You want a "street level" game? A reason to fight your way out of the street?
That's the only way of fleshing it out in a realistic way, and keeping it "Cyberpunk".
No need for grotesque explicit gore ala Mortal Kombat (wouldn't bother me, but can understand it wouldn't be well received), but still, people and random lost soulds needs to be agressive and violent, because that's how you turn when you live like that.
Do you think that Blood Razor meth-head would give a shit about you when the last thing he could eat was some rat and his boss beat his ass down because he didn't made enought cash last night?
Or that Solo, whose job is simply to take lifes for a living would shed a tear to your pleads?
Would "Edgerunners / Cyberpunks" be a thing if things were escapable by a nice smile and a tap on the shoulder?
Just look at Skid Row in LA, do you think that we can say Human Life has value in our society when you see that?
In Cyberpunk, human life as zero value, alive or dead, you don't matter no matter what, even as a CEO, you're killed, fine, you'll be replaced in the hour (when it's not simply your replacement who kills you to take your place on the upper floor)
People are enraged because it's an enraged world.
Johnny Silverhands sing songs about how Corporations are a bunch of criminal, mainly because that's what they are, forcing that way of living over everyone.
Imagine a Nazi world, but not driven by racist idea, but only by money.
You don't have any? Ok, just go in the gutter and die you stinky bum.
Violence IS Cyberpunk, simply because it's already omnipresent today, so it would only be amplified then in the worst way possible.
Go read Norman Spinrad's cyberpunk novels, they describe that feeling perfectly, the ugly suburbs looks freaking realistic, mean and menacing.
Otherwise, how will you need any member replacement?
I expect blood, gore and dismemberment to a large level, exploding heads, blood splatter and fist fights turning in blood bath (thanks for the slashers).
(What about cuting in a corpse to steal some organs to sell to the body bank?)
Violence is a core point of cyberpunk, it depicts a violent society.
In Neuromancer Molly use to brutally break bones and slash flesh, in Hardwired, Sarah dismembers and disfigure her attackers to leave a message to others "Don't fuck with me".
How do you plan on showing an society gone inhuman and ultraviolent without violence?
Cyberpunk is the society gone to the crapper, the non-violent person are either rich or dead or simply do they best to stay off the street (like trying to have a business and survive a decent way), but I'd expect the rest to be kinda batshit crazy.
Not saying it needs to be purely violent "to be violent", but why would you need Robocop in Detroit if the criminality and people aren't ultra-violent?
Do you think you'd talk those crackheads punks out of shooting your face for your money?
Night City (taken from the lore book "home of the brave") is the state in 2020 with the most homeless people, so imagine how many lost souls are around, they'd have nothing to lose, lots of crimes and violence going around, because that's how it's going in that kind of settings.
The ultraviolence (the more, the better), would only sets the tone, that world isn't a cool place to be, natural selection at it's finest.
Cyberpunk (2020), isn't ghost in the shell or Blade Runner (or maybe, just for the whole art design part), the social side is closer to Robocop, gangs are violent, most people live in the street because not other option for most of them (coffins are cheap, but yeah it's still money), they take drugs and attack each other for food or whatever, Combat Zone are called like that for a reason.
Ever gone to place with lots of poor people, often around train/bus stations, some dirty, living in a cardboard and walking in circle screaming at themselves in a monologue conversation? That you can tell the dude is either high, psychotic or both
Walking a few meters, having 2,3,4 dudes walking to you "Hey dude? want some fix?", etc...
Sure, you have some store, and lil things like that, to keep the place alive, a grocery, but most people just turn insane in those living conditions, or are forced to do nasty shits to get a living (doubt people join gangs for the fun of it, most are in either because they're dumb, or just have only that to keep them out of danger, the pack keeps you safe, reasons gangs are a thing)
It's already like that today, it would only get worse and meaner in a setting such as Cyberpunk when majority of the people would be in that situation (sure, some people would have their shit together, but most people would've known ONLY that their whole life, the street and the violence, like the kids growing in war zone)
Sure, I'm not talking about a "all the way ultraviolent" etc...
You'll meet companion and "casual people" to get along with.
But once in the street, you should "Feel" the sadness, the despair and the crazyness of that ultra-capitalist world, a world were if you have nothing YOU ARE NOTHING. Wouldn't you turn batshit crazy in a world like that? Where your life have no point beside trying to survive with other people ready to beat you up for what you have? (being homeless is freaking hard guys, between "wealthy" people making fun of you, other bums trying to fuck you up, and then the only escape you can have from that is drug or things like that)
Once in the street you can't get a decent job, because you need a phone, an adress, etc... things that you can't get if you're living on the pavement.
That's how you starts to get deshumanized and become more "animal", I've seen it and it's very heartbreaking, seriously.
Just think about all that, that's the "reality" of Cyberpunk 2020, things are almost the same, if not worse, in 2077.
The violence isn't just 'bam you're dead", I want that "capitalist" violence to be felt when I hang around Night City, those people aren't poor and dirty because they want to (no one want to end up like that, no one...), it's the way the things are going that forces people in those condition, and that's what I want to feel with Cyberpunk 2077, something very menacing.
You want a "street level" game? A reason to fight your way out of the street?
That's the only way of fleshing it out in a realistic way, and keeping it "Cyberpunk".
No need for grotesque explicit gore ala Mortal Kombat (wouldn't bother me, but can understand it wouldn't be well received), but still, people and random lost soulds needs to be agressive and violent, because that's how you turn when you live like that.
Do you think that Blood Razor meth-head would give a shit about you when the last thing he could eat was some rat and his boss beat his ass down because he didn't made enought cash last night?
Or that Solo, whose job is simply to take lifes for a living would shed a tear to your pleads?
Would "Edgerunners / Cyberpunks" be a thing if things were escapable by a nice smile and a tap on the shoulder?
Just look at Skid Row in LA, do you think that we can say Human Life has value in our society when you see that?
In Cyberpunk, human life as zero value, alive or dead, you don't matter no matter what, even as a CEO, you're killed, fine, you'll be replaced in the hour (when it's not simply your replacement who kills you to take your place on the upper floor)
People are enraged because it's an enraged world.
Johnny Silverhands sing songs about how Corporations are a bunch of criminal, mainly because that's what they are, forcing that way of living over everyone.
Imagine a Nazi world, but not driven by racist idea, but only by money.
You don't have any? Ok, just go in the gutter and die you stinky bum.
Violence IS Cyberpunk, simply because it's already omnipresent today, so it would only be amplified then in the worst way possible.
Go read Norman Spinrad's cyberpunk novels, they describe that feeling perfectly, the ugly suburbs looks freaking realistic, mean and menacing.
Last edited:
Maelcom404;n10510892 said:
I agree with most of the rest of this, but to answer this question - actually, yes. It is possible to do just that, even in real life, and especially in the 2020 PnP. Any good RPG leaves dialogue and diplomacy as a valid way through a situation.
That does not mean being a goody two shoes - indeed, it can mean quite the opposite. Being lowlife scum who is willing to lie, cheat and bluff his or her way through a situation.
If you have 3 thugs holding you up, convince them you're someone important, or that you have a detonator in your brain that will level the entire city block if they shoot you, or that you have backup aiming sniper rifles at their face, or that you can get them much more money if they help you with a job and follow you into this dark alleyway...
There are numerous ways through any situation, and that should absolutely be reflected in the game. Humans are humans, and unless they've fully gone the route of cyberpsycho, or are psychopaths, they have emotions - fear chief among them. Exploit that.
To be clear, I'm not saying it needs to work every time. A good RPG understands this as well. If you fail the dialogue check, well too bad chief, gonna have to shoot your way out or run (both of which should be valid options outside of heavily scripted encounters).
Just my two cents. But otherwise I agree. Violence is critical and shouldn't be toned down for political or "squeamish" reasons, specifically.
Snowflakez;n10511302 said:
I'm not so sure every addict, thug and gangbanger needs to be negotiable by default. I mean, I'm all for lots and lots of complex dialogs as keys to unravel different situations, but how many of the crackheads running towards you to get your money and your innards would stop and listen if you shouted "PARLAY! I'm someone Important!", at that point, just run as fast as you can if you can't kill them?
There is a context, like a presence of (their) authority where some negotiations would take place, but, well.... Being the talkative guy instead of the violent one shouldn't be a shield from inconvenient situations if you walked up to them. Sometimes escape and avoidance are the best optiona no matter how silver your tongue was because the adversaries might not even understand your fancy words (or care for that matter).
kofeiiniturpa;n10511442 said:
Yeah, I acknowledged that. Not every situation can be talked through. But even the most seemingly impossible of situations can have a diplomatic outcome. It doesn't have to work every time but even violent, stupid thugs are capable of acting in their own self interest. If given a compelling enough reason to stay their hand and get something better in return, I think there should be plenty of situations where it would work just fine, provided your speech skills are high.
As long as escape is often an option, I'm fine with that. But, knowing CDPR, combat is going to be essential in many situations, so I'm probably hoping for a bit too much. I'm expecting more TPS than RPG in that regard.
kofeiiniturpa;n10511442 said:
True enough, although the downside is that it is for similar reasons that games tend to end up focusing on combat, as the alternative approaches only work sometimes, so players know a solo-like character is a safer bet, and developers prioritize what they think will be most popular.
Snowflakez;n10511592 said:
I'd think about how plausible it would be for a situation to actually have any chances for diplomacy (inspite of the character build). And in any case, I think it's the "mandatory" combat events that should have the negotiation options, because those situations are there no matter what and you end up quickly in the situation Deus Ex Human Revolution was with its "bossfights with a non-combat character" nightmare if you're not careful. Random fights in the streets are mostly optionable by avoiding alleyways and groups of thugs that don't look like they can form a word, running around negotiating with addicts would indeed be a weird sight, "Night City 2077, where even drug addicts behave like stockbrokers".
I don't think asking for social/commerce venues out of situations is unreasonable at all (I'm asking for much more than that), but I'm trying to find context for where these things might occur, where it'd be reasonable to expect to be able to bargain or negotiate yourself out of a bad situation (if you have the character for it). That's all.
sv3672;n10511622 said:
Yeah, that's true. It's a challenge to situate the "possible" combat events and their optional routes the right way and design the character systems such that a Solo is not the be all end all of things.
One way would be to actually keep track on the players violence and bodycount and give it gameplay responsiveness that mgiht be undesireable, and I don't mean a "wanted level" here, but something deeper that can become a gamelong concern (or opportunity, depending how you play).
Last edited:
sv3672;n10511622 said:
Yup, this is one of my concerns, and this is what I think will almost certainly happen. But I'm very much ready to be proven wrong! I've been playing a lot of "Classic" RPGs lately (And Kingdom Come: Deliverance) and I'm just loving the absolute freedom I have over the way encounters play out. I don't have to kill everyone I see. It's a freeing feeling. I hope CDPR can match it in some way.
kofeiiniturpa;n10511742 said:I'd think about how plausible it would be for a situation to actually have any chances for diplomacy (inspite of the character build). And in any case, I think it's the "mandatory" combat events that should have the negotiation options, because those situations are there no matter what and you end up quickly in the situation Deus Ex Human Revolution was with its "bossfights with a non-combat character" nightmare if you're not careful. Random fights in the streets are mostly optionable by avoiding alleyways and groups of thugs that don't look like they can form a word, running around negotiating with addicts would indeed be a weird sight, "Night City 2077, where even drug addicts behave like stockbrokers".
I don't think asking for social/commerce venues out of situations is unreasonable at all (I'm asking for much more than that), but I'm trying to find context for where these things might occur, where it'd be reasonable to expect to be able to bargain or negotiate yourself out of a bad situation (if you have the character for it). That's all.
Fair enough. I guess it's not strictly diplomatic outcomes that I'm looking for in all situations, just non-combat options in general. You make good points. Avoidance should definitely be a thing for non-scripted (or semi-scripted) encounters, especially, in a dense city like the one CDPR is hoping to create.
It is certainly tough to nail down when diplomacy has a place in those encounters, but here's a few situations off the top of my head - firstly, I think it depends entirely on context, and the person messing with you.
So, maybe it's a frightened kid (~19 years old or so) who's never shot anybody before. Maybe it's a group of regular folks who got just a wee bit too drunk. In those situations, I see opportunities for non-violent outcomes, even if the stakes will be high and the situation tense. For the former situation, an appeal to humanity may work, or a bit of intimidation. In the latter, maybe they can be placated with some high-end, mind-blowing drugs.
But even if it is the drug-addled, barely-grasps-the-concept-of-speaking fella who you really can't reason with, you still don't necessarily need to get into a fight. If they're just out for blood, maybe you can briefly distract them long enough to run away. Naturally, they'll probably shoot at you and give chase, but you aren't forced to fight.
If all they care about is money/drugs, maybe you can give it to them (optional, of course - some people would never let their pride be injured in such a way
) and leave otherwise unmolested.
You know, there's a skill for "Human perception", perhaps - among other thigns - it could be used for evaluating how likely suscepotible or vulnerable an NPC (any NPC) might be for outside influence (i.e. persuasion, seduction, intimidation...).
Last edited:
Then there's also the other skills you mentioned.kofeiiniturpa;n10511952 said:
Not skills included in shooters because they have zero relevance or utility. Let's just hope that it CP2077 there's more then the one or two uses for such skills most games that even bother to include them offer.
Snowflakez;n10511872 said:
In addition to dialogue, combat can also be avoided by stealth, or simply running away. Ideally, at least one of them should be viable in a given situation, or forced combat be limited to specific quests that are optional, and diplomatic or stealthy characters would know not to take those quests (or maybe there would be a way to hire someone else to do them). Running away from combat works better if the AI is intentionally not very good at hitting moving targets (unconditionally bloodthirsty types of enemies may even be more incompetent), and (unlike The Witcher 3) the game is not designed in ways that try to lock the player into an encounter.
Last edited:
Suhiira;n10512282 said:
Let's indeed.
I think CDPR should strive to expand the ways of world and NPC interactions via character systems (and interface) in CP2077 as a whole by comparison to what you get even in normal AAA RPG's. Meaning it's not just scripted dialog scenes, or reaction animations and barks from bumping into people, but that it devels deeper into those possibilities (and dares to use abstraction because not doing so would indeed severely limit the spectrum of possible interactivity).