Snowflakez;n10477252 said:
Su makes very sound points, but it is worth noting that she tends to play devil's advocate often. I don't think she, or any of us, expect CDPR to make the game we have been arguing in favor of here, and in other topics. We hope for the best, but I think we will inevitably be disappointed in many areas and we're all prepared for it. Most of us probably don't really expect CDPR to implement a fully text-based dialogue system (At least for the PC). It's basically an impossibility. But I'm sure as heck going to argue for it anyway, because I think it makes for inherently better RPGs.
I don't want "cinematic" experiences. If I wanted that, I'd watch a movie. I want a game. Interactivity, reactivity, in-depth RPG mechanics that engage me.
I really hope they don't just make TW3 but with a character creator. That is a horrible idea and it would represent them completely pooping all over the source material. I'd actually like them to take some queues from recently-released Kingdom Come: Deliverance. If CP2077 had that game's RPG mechanics and was otherwise similar to TW3, I'd be extremely impressed and happy. KCD has reactivity on a macro and micro scale, much deeper RPG mechanics than you see in either TW3 or Skyrim and a number of other things I'm very much enjoying.
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:
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.
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.)