Snowflakez;n10459372 said:
I bet not many of you realized that the whole "Geraldine" thing is, IN FACT, a Flip Wilson reference. Don't get it? You will after this, honey!https://youtu.be/tcbn0K84ZdE
I bet not many of you realized that the whole "Geraldine" thing is, IN FACT, a Flip Wilson reference. Don't get it? You will after this, honey!https://youtu.be/tcbn0K84ZdE
Geralt_of_bsas;n10476892 said:
Well that’s just too bad for Cyberpunk.
What a waste.
I don’t think that’s quite true. I’m fully prepared to the game being some kind of GTA-Witcher 3 amalgam with a Cyberpunk crust and a gruff, tough sounding male/female protagonist to whom you can decide the looks and some largely meaningless stats/skills.
It’s what we want and accept that’s different. I’m arguing for what I think should be (with everything I argue for), and there is leeway there (I’m not dictating a rigid border that if it’s not as I say to the letter, it’s a bust), but at most I expect a disappointment before I can see for myself.
Last edited:
I keep telling people, there's a reason my avatar has horns and a tail.Snowflakez;n10477252 said:
I can agree to a point. I certainly don't think "The Order 1886" was a good game by any means, but DAMN was it pretty (No, I never bought/played it, but I've seen it on YouTube).Snowflakez;n10477252 said:
Something like "Dragon Age: Origins" (we'll just ignore the rest of the series) was certainly good enough cinematically and game play wise for me (perfect, hell no, but good enough).
It's not impossible to do a voice-acted game with dialog depth, but I don't really expect to see one until someone incorporates computer generated voices into a game. It's just to time/money intensive to use voice actors (and we'll just ignore how many games "waste" huge amount of their budget on "famous" actors).
>I really like the idea that my character depending the ethnicity can have their own voices pitch and accent.
>I found more appealing creating a character protagonist not close to my "looks" cliche and watching how he or her interacts in the world, (like a movie) instead of seeing me how I would interact in the world.
>It makes role-playing much more real and appealing than once can think, adding that feature to the voices depending as you wrote the race and where you might wan to be from, is quite something and it could make the experience quite more believable.
>That is one thing that I really liked about the new story in Fallout 4, the addition to voice acting. Made me create and believe not only the father or the mother, (haven't made a playthrough with the mother yet). So I can experience the character instead of me experience me as the character, by creating my self. Having that new fresh option/experience to create this unknown characters based on his voice. And the upcoming challenges that the world is going to put them trough. Was something that I enjoy very much.
>I found more appealing creating a character protagonist not close to my "looks" cliche and watching how he or her interacts in the world, (like a movie) instead of seeing me how I would interact in the world.
>It makes role-playing much more real and appealing than once can think, adding that feature to the voices depending as you wrote the race and where you might wan to be from, is quite something and it could make the experience quite more believable.
>That is one thing that I really liked about the new story in Fallout 4, the addition to voice acting. Made me create and believe not only the father or the mother, (haven't made a playthrough with the mother yet). So I can experience the character instead of me experience me as the character, by creating my self. Having that new fresh option/experience to create this unknown characters based on his voice. And the upcoming challenges that the world is going to put them trough. Was something that I enjoy very much.
Last edited:
Snowflakez;n10477252 said:
Yeah I agree, one of my disappointments, potential but probable at least, has already been kinda confirmed, when they said CP would be x amount of times bigger than W3 which for me was too big already and had a lot of waste such as question mark thingies and some monster contracts.
I do believe however, and this is why I'm still super excited for the game, that whatever they do, they'll do something more ambitious than we've ever seen before, and that likely includes reactivity and role-playing freedom even in the expensive cinematic experience they seem to want to do. This is their MO after all. With W3 the discussion was all about "oh noes open world, the quests and characters and story and etc are all going to suck just like in other open world games, nobody has gone open world and kept the quality before" and of course, I was in the camp of "just make chapter based W1/W2 but with more chapters, bigger locations, and focus on depth"; but in the end, it was a REALLY good open world game, and quality was satisfying enough despite it.
Like I said before, I just don't believe VA is anywhere close to be a significant bottleneck for them, if it was, I'd cut that shit in a heartbeat.
KC: D seems like a good inspiration to me too, but I'm personally expecting a lot more out of CP.
kofeiiniturpa;n10477322 said:
Agreed, and that's who they are, at least until proven otherwise. I was already disappointed from W1 to W2 because of several reasons that had to do with simplification, "casualization", "mainstreamness", and even W3 wasn't saved from that. They did though, kinda brute forced their way into my overall satisfaction with what they do invest most of their resources in.
I'm not expecting GTA with meaningless stats though, but rather a good bridge between isometric RPGs and cutting edge AAA games. Sure CP probably won't be right in the middle, but I am expecting a 6 or 7 to 10, instead of 9 to 10 like Bioware games are for instance. (0 would be full RPG, 10 full action adventure whatever AAA game, just to be clear.)
Geralt_of_bsas;n10488332 said:
What do you suppose that is? What does a "good bridge" in your mind do in light of your expectation that CDPR won't be going for systemic gameplay, reactivity or indepth mechanics? That's a lot of bridgebuilding material already ruled out -- it's like the first and second of the three little piggies.
I've never been a big fan of the Witcher series. I've played the games and they've been OK, but the way I see it they've gone downwards gameplaywise with every passing title (and I think it was Iwinski who even said that Witcher 1 was "too hardcore" so they simplified it in Witcher 2) and that is legitimately concerning direction when I think about how they might handle Cyberpunk.
Geralt_of_bsas;n10488332 said:
At most it should be around 3 or 4. 8 or 9 is where I expect it to be.
There are things that definitely could work. Life path affecting quests & characters. Roles with very different play styles. Non linear high quality quest line progression. Skill point progression system. Hopefully companion system with character builds. Faction and NPC reputation systems.kofeiiniturpa;n10488672 said:
I think something along that line could get you in the 6-7 area while keeping the a more visually AAA style game. I know it's not enough for you Kofe, but I could see those systems working pretty well in blending action and RPG styles. But I really liked TW3 and Mass Effect Trilogy.
Last edited:
Rawls;n10488732 said:
Yeah, it's not. It's certainly something, but I expect the actual gameplay mechanisms to deliver as well as the reactivity features like (lifepath and reputation) and a progression system simply 'existing for show' won't do it.
kofeiiniturpa;n10488862 said:
Would you play the game if it was a 6 on the "RPG scale"?
If '0' is "Torment" and '10' is "Overwatch" I could handle a '6'. But as I said elsewhere, "Kingdom Come" looks interesting but a "Knight" playthru isn't in the cards for me (too 'twitch' and 'QTE'), so far I havn't seen a non-combat playthru (tho I hear it possible) on YouTube so I'm still waiting to decide if I'll even buy it.
And yes, the combat system alone, because it is a HUGE part of the game, is what's stopping me regardless of any other elements the game may have. Simply because if you're a klutz like me and can't win the fights you can't play the game.
And yes, the combat system alone, because it is a HUGE part of the game, is what's stopping me regardless of any other elements the game may have. Simply because if you're a klutz like me and can't win the fights you can't play the game.
This game released virtually 3 days ago with zero finished let's plays, no one ever able to prove developers' words and finish KC - D with non-combat character yet. But you can take my word - Vavra delivers! And I cross my fingers CDPR too. I don't like rushing into action on a first walkthrough and playing as myself.Suhiira;n10490342 said:
Last edited:
Suhiira;n10490342 said:
Non-combat is mostly possible, if not entirely possible (I haven't beaten the game yet and I heard there's actually non combat ways around boss fights). I'd say 80% of the game can probably be finished without combat. Which isn't to say you can't be put in a situation where a dialogue check fails and you have to run from stronger enemies (or fight, if that's your preference). That's happened on several occasions. Indeed, while fast traveling, you will run into random encounters, some of which are tough, well-geared Cumans. Mount up and try to escape or try to fight 'em off, or sneak into the forest and stalk them when they give up the chase.
24 hours in, and the only combat encounters I've had where it was unavoidable were during training where it doesn't matter if you win or lose and scripted encounters where you're supposed to lose. These are not frequent.
But, things could change... I'm sure I'll mention more of my thoughts on it later on as I play through more of the game.
Speaking to everyone generally, now...
On a 1-10 RPG scale, I'd say Kingdom Come is definitely around a 5, probably even a 4, simply because so much of the came can be completed with no combat whatsoever, and skills so, so heavily affect everything you do. It's honestly as close as you're going to get right now unless 2077 blows us all away. There's nothing else out there that even comes close.
That said, it is a fixed protagonist. You do not create your own character. And there is voice acting. So... pros and cons.
Snowflakez;n10477252 said:
Maybe, but Kingdom Come got it backwards. You're supposed to use third person view for gameplay, first person view for dialogue!
I agree with some previous posters that the problem with a silent protagonist is that they do not jive well with how the camera works outside of isometric. My character in Origins looked like a dumbass, if I may say so. That is hardly conductive to immersion or roleplaying, if I am giggling or groaning every time the camera checks on them during dialogue.
Kofe had the right example in mind. Bloodlines has a first person view for conversations that eliminated the awkwardness of the PC's dead eyed stare. I agree that a silent protagonist would be preferable, and not necessarily prejudicial to sales, but only with that caveat.
Snowflakez;n10489572 said:
Probably. Depends on what kind of game the number would actually constitute for.
Gwydden;n10491262 said:
Yeah, that makes sense. First person for dialogue, third for everything else, fine by me. Although I don't think it's terribly harmful to give people the option to switch at will (Even if your proposed system is the "default").
I think the main reason Kingdom Come is entirely first person is that... I have no idea, actually. They said they wanted to have both views as a stretch goal, I guess they sorta gave up on that idea, hah. Maybe due to the combat system? It'd be a bit wonky in third person, I feel, due to stuff like the helmet vision obstructions and whatnot.
Also possible that it's to put even more of an emphasis on roleplay. You don't see anything your character can't see, that sort of thing.
kofeiiniturpa;n10488672 said:
I think a good bridge would be 3 times or more the amount of paths/alternatives to play the game and solve quests for instance, and they could definitely make the hierarchy of quests and the order in which you complete them dynamic, based on how you want to play, rather than typical set main story with mandatory plot points, making it more modular. Also they'll definitely be implementing stats and skills that go far into social aspects of the char, not just for combat. What I meant is that they wont prioritize the "RPG depth" aspects of the design over AAA quality, but I do think they'll harder than anyone has yet.
I love the witcher games but think like you, gameplay at least in terms of direction (not refinement) got worse and worse. However, witcher is also a product of the company and its condition at the time, they were troublesome times, CDPR was barely known, struggling to survive, witcher was niche, they never made a product of technical scope they could say was satisfactory compared to the top games in the market, but all that is behind them now, that's gotta affect CP in some way. I remember iwinski's comment being more about bugs, accessibility, and general polish. Honestly, with witcher 2 the company barely made it, in witcher 3 one can see however that they greatly expanded almost every system from TW1 except for giving gifts and drinking competitions, now I didnt like what they did much, but when they were able to, they didn't make it more simple.
Big part of my excitement for CP is that the company is at its best moment ever as far as we can know from the outside, so this is the moment of truth to see what they do with that "freedom".
Looking at the OP, I can't help but think how long it would take and how expensive it would be to have 3 voice sets for each ethnicity for both genders, get the lip sync done, emotion animations completed, and buy enough coffee to spank this task. That is a LOT of voice actors to hire unless you can get most if not all who are multilingual and good at vocal manipulation, which that point, I'd say go with a silent PC to save money since generally people who are able to voice act that well aren't cheap. Granted, I would 100% support this idea if CDPR has the money and time for such a task.
Also, chances are good, due to how modern standards are for games like this, to be voiced. A trick you can do in a lot of games, turn off voice audio, and turn on subtitles.
Also, chances are good, due to how modern standards are for games like this, to be voiced. A trick you can do in a lot of games, turn off voice audio, and turn on subtitles.
Last edited:
Here's the thing about the whole silent protagonist. Way back in the eary days of Hollywood they had silent movies. Things like colour and voice recording was expensive and movies were often made on a shoe string budget. As time passed and Hollywood grew in fame, companies were able to add sound colour and fancy features. Video games are the same. They have imitated the film industries path to a tee. Video games, much like films, are expensive to make. Incredibly expensive. you have to hire a whole range of people to do a whole range of jobs. People today dont want silent video games much like they dont want a silent movie its great for the nostalgia feel, but generally I want my characters to talk. I feel in most cases it helps lend to a stronger story. Imagine if a game like The Last of Us was silent? you wouldnt have gotten anywhere near the level of emotion needed to convey a deep story. Thats why they do it.
Now granted, Geralt wasnt exactly a rainbow of emotions due to his mutations and I never really got into the Deus Ex series, but on the whole I feel like voiced main characters are a good thing.
Now granted, Geralt wasnt exactly a rainbow of emotions due to his mutations and I never really got into the Deus Ex series, but on the whole I feel like voiced main characters are a good thing.
But silent movies ~100 years ago and silent protagonist in a videogame are not comparable situations at all.