Gameplay - depth vs complexity vs fun

+

Gameplay - depth vs complexity vs fun


  • Total voters
    273
Eltyris;n9300431 said:
Number 1 important thing is that core gameplay/systems foundation is coherent and compatible with one another/setting/etc across the board.
If you wildly change your design goals here from one entry to another, result is ( nearly) always : two steps forward, two steps back.
This is where Witcher suffered the most, you can see this in other series ( like with Dragon Age)...opposite examples such as Souls series, where developers held to same vision, but slowly improved with each entry (tracing all the way back from King's Field).

Is action gameplay emphasizing speed and quick reaction?...then controls need to be designed around precision and responsiveness above all else.
Does it take place in open world/sandbox? Gameplay should have "organic" transition between different states, level design that doesn't highlight Combat Arena!, include interaction with the world and emergent/non scripted scenarios as vital part of gameplay and no artificial restrictions ( like invisible enemy aggro force fields), etc.
Massive game length? No soft lock system/auto aim, higher skill ceiling.
Is world economy tied to morality system? Strict inventory system or low quantity/handplaced world objects.
Etc, etc...


To add you're saying does the leveling system hurt the open world experience(cough the Witcher 3). The gear and quest restrictions don't belong in a open world game at all. Argh the leveling system in that game was such a garbage incoherent mess. This post from reddit just reminded me of it.


https://www.reddit.com/r/Games/comme...itcher_3_feel/
 
Last edited:
kofeiiniturpa;n9302221 said:
Of course. There's always something, and that's a good thing. There's something to talk about and perhaps even learn, constant backpatting is the worst form of discussion.

I don't remember any drastic disagreements, though. But you might've not just made them known yet.
It's mostly some minor differences in opinion on certain aspects... none that I would be able to right now come up with and point at, since my memory can be a bit... spotty... with stuff like that. XD Basicly, we are in the same "tree" generally, but which if the branches we prefer to keep and/or change and/or remove, and/or value the most, might differ a bit... and some difference of opinion on the leaves as well when it comes to maybe shape and colouring and such... if that analogy makes any sence to you at all... XD

And I don't always comment on it since either I feel it is just such a minor difference that it might not matter... or it's something which is compleatly down to personal opinion to such a point that it could potentually be close to useless to have a debate about it (more then "I like this, because... etc" with a reply if "Ah I see... well I like this instead because... etc"... XD )... or because I really did not feel like writing a post at that time... and/or because I knew my post would at that time become such a huge thing, like they almost always are, that I stopped my self befor I started writing... which does not always work... I have had occations where I suddently realized it was 10 hours later and I was still working on the same damn post... at which point I will often just go "Nope..." and close down my internet browser flushing down a large amount of hours worth of "work"... XD

I don't think you guys ever get to see more then somewhere around 1/3rd to 2/3rds of all the posts I have ever writen on this forum... due to me eventually coming to the conclusion that I really did not feel like continuing trying to tamper with the post til it was done... or felt that what I had writen was close to useless or something... or felt that I had goten so bogged down that I feel it would be too difficult to untangle it, and/or did not feel like essentually start over from the beginning again (which does happen from time to time as well). What you do get to see, atleast when it comes to the big posts, are the ones which manages to slip through. XD


Rawls;n9302641 said:
I've never said mechanics aren't important. I said for RPGs it is best to first develop the story and narrative design then focus on the gameplay design. Choices and narrative are the center of an RPG. Also, the greater point is that even in Grand Strategy (which as you say is inherently more mechanic based), the game I enjoy the most is centered around the personal stories of one family and their story.
Did not mean to imply that you did not think it was importent.

I just feel you could just as easy start at the other end though... where making the game fun to play first, and then add a good story on top of that, is an equaly viable option.

If anything, this is how I prefer it to be... because then you atleast make sure that the game is fun to play during the majority of the game... seeing as the majority of the gametime you spend in most RPG's out there do not involve you watching and/or interacting with the story... the majority of most RPG's out there involves you spending time with the gameplay and mechanics (be it combat, or using skills to do stuff, or what ever).

And as such, I am much more likely to stop playing a game due to bad or uninteresting gameplay and mechanics, then I am due to a bad or uninspired story. And that is based just on the sheer fact that you will spend a lot more time with the gameplay then you ever will on the actual story in most RPG's... have not even take into account yet that I tend to prefer that they make sure the gameplay and mechanics are good befor the story. When I do take that into account, then it is almost inevitable that I would stop playing such a game.

If I am going to spend 100-200+ hours on a game (or any amount of time really, even if it is only 10 hours or less), then I want the vast majority of that to be on something I enjoy doing, and maybe more impostently don't get tired of doing either for that matter. And if the only thing about that game that I enjoy is the story? Then I would probably be lucky if I enjoyed.... I don't know... 10-20 % of the game? Which would be nowhere near the "vast majority" of the game.

And then it would not matter what the story would be either. Like I have said, the Mass Effect is, together with some several Final Fantasy games, my alltime favorit games out there... and a large part of that reason is due to the story... but if that story had been in a game where I really did not enjoy the gameplay and mechanics of it, or if the gameplay of Mass Effect it's self had been really bad then I would have never even finished Mass Effect 1.

Rawls;n9302641 said:
Also, I don't think being able to play something a lot is equal to thinking it is the best. I would put the ME Trilogy and TW3 ahead of CKII on my all time list ... even though I've played CKII more. Replay-ability is important, but it isn't everything.
And nore have I said that. I have after all pointed to the sheer fact that most of my top favorit games of all time tends to be games which where heavy on the story, very story driven and all. But that does not mean that story is my favorit element of games... my favorit elements of games comes down to gameplay and game mechanics. The reason a game like Mass Effect places it's self so high is based on the combined score between everything in them... where each part of your score of the game is dedicated to one or a few aspects of the game... so no wonder then that a game like XCOM places it self well over 15-20 possitions further down my favorit games lists then something like Mass Effect does... because the story in XCOM is only there to give the player a gental push towards what they need to do, save earth from aliens... and a such that game is already at a disadvantage based on the sheer fact that it probably will not score high on the story side of it.

Actually... if I where to remove the story part of Mass Effect... and just compare it's gameplay and mechanics against other games... like let's say Fallout 2... then Mass Effect would lose... ME would actually lose against most games on my top lists if only it's gameplay and mechanics was a factor in how well it scored with me... ME1 to me probably is somewhere around a 6-7 in gameplay and mechanics for me, and ME2 and 3 (and Andromeda) are somewhere in the range of a 7-8 for me... where as Fallout 2's gameplay and mechanics are up at a 9 for me... I would say that Fallout Tactics is actually at a 10 here for me (and FOT is on par with games like UFO: Enemy Unknown and XCOM in this aspect as well).

The story of a game can make me interested in checking out a game. Where as gameplay and game mechanics makes me want to play a game, AND keep playing a game. There is a difference after all. Although... more so then anything it is a combination of the various aspects, story, gameplay and mechanics, genre, and sometimes the look of the game as well. But gameplay and game mechanics almost always wins out over the others for me... I mean heck, I almost bought a boxing game some 15-20 years ago because I found out that you could create your own boxer, and that he could get better at certain aspect of boxing... that's how powerful gameplay and game mechanics can be for me... that is why Dawn of War 2 is my favorit Dawn of War game, because it had the RPG like types of mechanics in it. And that is why XCOM is essentually my goto game at almost any given time currently, because the gameplay and game mechanics are so strong, and good, and compleatly... compleatly wonderful... XD

When I first started to see news about Mass Effect, with it's story and all, I felt "Yeah... that might be interesting, I'll check it out"... where as as soon as information came out about XCOM: Enemy Unknown my instant reaction was "OH HELL YEAH! This I GOT to play!" (that was atleast how it went down in my mind... I am not the kind of person who has verbal outbursts like that... I am a very held back person with stuff like that... XD )... there was no if's or but's about it, as there was with Mass Effect.
 
What people don't get is that is that marketing is a powerfull thing.

from the reddit link:

LegateLaniusThe2nd;n9304291 said:
"For me, the best part about open world games is to just be able to go fuck off somewhere and do whatever you want. The 'wanderlust' experience, so to say. Now the world in TW3 would clearly be perfect for that, and the game is meant to be played that way to a degree, but then why is there a leveling system in place that keeps telling you 'no' to most of the choices you make? As well as makes other areas too easy to enjoy any sense of adventure? And especially at the beginning, it's a huge immersion breaker as well because a 100yo witcher can't duel against some cocky random joe because he's got a higher level... what?
"


It makes sense to a extent, but wouldn't getting rid of the leveling system as a whole be also problematic, if not done correctly? On the other hand, New Vegas had quite a restricted open world exploration while still making sense. Funny, thing is that after all these years I finally realised that siding with Caesar's Legion was the 2nd best choice.

 
Last edited:
Sardukhar;n9303881 said:
That is a 4 year old..rumour. Based on early production plans. So, pretty much of no value.

Pretty much realized that when I had to wiki for the reference, but it just made sense to me.
The idea I've had in my head for CP77, correct or not, is "1999 Deus Ex, but 10 times better."
Doubt I'll be disappointed even if I'm wrong.


metalmaniac21;n9291151 said:
I agree. CDPR didn't hire KyleRowley, well known for Quantum Break man, for developing an FPS. So it's a TPS.
BTW, QB is a great shooter, apart from all controversial qualities of this game.

Probably right, easier to show off cool outfits and weapons in third person, more fitting to an RPG, now that I think about it.
 
NukeTheMoon;n9307561 said:
That is a 4 year old..rumour. Based on early production plans. So, pretty much of no value.

You ruined the fun. Can't you see that the lies is all we have? :p

Wait a second...We're all hyped about something we have no idea what will be...are we insane? Nah, we just trust CDPR.
 
NukeTheMoon;n9307561 said:
Pretty much realized that when I had to wiki for the reference, but it just made sense to me.
The idea I've had in my head for CP77, correct or not, is "1999 Deus Ex, but 10 times better."
Doubt I'll be disappointed even if I'm wrong.
Best to expect nothing and hope for everything you want ... geee ... sorta reminds me of writing letters to Santa as a child.

 
What I would want more than anything is to have a complex system of combat that also creates complex consequences. As in, if I kick the door in of Building A, kill 3 people, and terrorize the last henchman to get the name of the major "boss", the next mission is a major shootout at the bad-guy's stronghold because boss-man knows I'm coming and he's @#$%!ng pissed about what happened to his men. Plus, I don't get a promotion because I'm a hot-head.

Vice versa, if I sneak into Building A and eavesdrop on the henchman, the mission to take out the boss is a dialogue quest when I confront him in a public restaurant. No shots fired. Instead, he sends an assassin after me later on.

I would love the complexity to interweave multiple game mechanics, not simply be a linear story with a complex combat system. If I shoot someone -- anyone -- I'd like that to have more effect than bullet-hole decals appearing and a "Mission Completed" message.
 
SigilFey;n9315511 said:
If I shoot someone -- anyone -- I'd like that to have more effect than bullet-hole decals appearing and a "Mission Completed" message.
You forgot gore splatter and dramatic deaths, both an essential part of FPS games these days.

 
SigilFey;n9316351 said:
I did forget this, yes. :p
If you were Sardukhar I'd ask "On purpose?", but since you're not I'll assume an honest mistake vice part of your plot to take over the world ...

[video=youtube_share;e_mPrhwpZ-8]https://youtube.com/watch?v=e_mPrhwpZ-8[/video]
 
Last edited:
Suhiira;n9316121 said:
You forgot gore splatter and dramatic deaths, both an essential part of FPS games these days.
Hang on now... those things are not exclusive to FPS only!

You are totally forgetting Fallout here... ever since the three original ones, up untill the three last one, there has always been a chance for blood and gore when you killed an opponent (think it might be connected to critical hits, but not compleatly sure since I think I have goten those violant death animations with normal hits as well)... AND, if you picked the Trait (or Perk if it was in Fo3 or later) "Bloody Mess", then the chance for a killed character having a violant death animation was increased as well! XD

 
Calistarius;n9317181 said:
Hang on now... those things are not exclusive to FPS only!
I never said they were exclusive, merely more-or-less a typical and expected aspect of the genre.
 
Calistarius;n9317181 said:
Hang on now... those things are not exclusive to FPS only!
You are totally forgetting Fallout here... ever since the three original ones, up untill the three last one, there has always been a chance for blood and gore when you killed an opponent (think it might be connected to critical hits, but not compleatly sure since I think I have goten those violant death animations with normal hits as well)... AND, if you picked the Trait (or Perk if it was in Fo3 or later) "Bloody Mess", then the chance for a killed character having a violant death animation was increased as well! XD

Agreed! I don't think this is mutually exclusive with having complex outcomes. Fallout 1 and 2 are perfect examples of the best of both worlds, really. There were lots of "ripples" in the original Fallout games that were based upon how you completed objectives. I don't remember exactly what it was, but there was a town in FO2 where 3 thugs mug you and start a small combat sequence the first time you enter. If you had already "made a name for yourself", though, they don't mug you -- instead they have an awesome little dialogue between each other about "Don't want to mess with this one...He's the one that took out [InsertBigBadBossName]...That's the guy!?...Shit..." and they just let you walk by. I'd like to see that type of complexity return.

_______________


As for actual combat complexity, I would definitely hope to see something more than Call of Duty shooting mechanics. Hopefully something that "incorporates" shooting with melee...without having to "drop the gun". Equilibrium-style (SPOILERS -- this will ruin the film for those that haven't seen it):

 
The more I think about this thread ... the more I come down on "it depends on the mechanic." So for me:

1. Lifepath & character customization - would like it to be as in depth as possible so long as it doesn't detract from facial animations or story depth. 1000 life path options that result in 5-10 lines of different dialogue each are not interesting. 25-50 possible paths that have there own unique story-line, dialogue, characters and reputation influences would be great.
2. PC skills stats - similar to CP2020 but adapted for action RPG.
3. Encounters - dialogue, combat, stealth and hacking ought to be regularly available options for encounters. I don't know that each has to be available for every encounter ... but each should available regularly. Also, just make these systems fun as we'll be doing them a lot.
4. Combat - again various options are important. I do want it to be companion based to an extent since roles/classes are important to the CP system (plus it's fun, strategic and tactical when you have a team approach). I do want to be aiming the shots, and doing the fighting myself ... because it's fun. I appreciate the old school way, but I like the intensity of being involved in the combat as the player. The action is important to me. Doesn't have to be super complicated for me.
5. Choices and consequences - very important to make the game feel like you are making the choices as the character ... and feeling like those choices effect the game. That's role playing. So yes, important that it's as in depth as possible while still being practically feasible.
6. Crafting - does NOT have to be complicated for me. So long as it makes some intuitive sense and isn't a complete slog to grind through, I'm fine. I do think it makes some sense that crafting be skill locked to an extent (i.e. you can't craft complicated cyberwear unless you have that skill).
EDIT: 7. Factions/reputation - please do something with this. Making one group happy upsets another etc etc. No worldwide karma system ... but your actions effect how NPCs perceive you and how willing they are to give you information, help you out, give you good prices, etc. END EDIT

So yeah ... lots of ways to do stuff generally. Just have to keep in mind the feasibility aspect.
SigilFey;n9318681 said:
Agreed! I don't think this is mutually exclusive with having complex outcomes. Fallout 1 and 2 are perfect examples of the best of both worlds, really. There were lots of "ripples" in the original Fallout games that were based upon how you completed objectives ... [snip] ... I'd like to see that type of complexity return.
+1
 
Last edited:
Rawls;n9319201 said:
The more I think about this thread ... the more I come down on "it depends on the mechanic." So for me:

(7 great points.)

The next great leap (risk) that I'd like to see a game take is have various aspects of each of these things be exclusive. So, i.e., if I choose to be a run-and-gun type of character, Faction A will have nothing to do with me in game, and may even become an enemy. If I don't join Faction A, I never get really cool stealth tech, but I get access to the best weaponry by joining Faction B instead. If I join Faction C, because I'm the diplomatic type, I get access to mid-range skills / gear of both Faction A and Faction B, but I'll never get access to the best stuff since I'm not willing to commit to either faction. Therefore, the path I wind up taking through the game, the options that are provided to me for each mission, and the actual results (how the game ends), will all be based on the choices I make, the factions I join, the skills I use, and way I conducted myself.

In that regard, I'd like to see a shorter, overall game with tons of replayability, rather than a long-as-bleep game that more or less plays out the same way every time. Kind of like: to get the whole story, I have to play through as a good guy, a bad guy, a thief, a diplomat, and a lone-wolf mercenary...seeing totally different paths through the game each time.
 
metalmaniac21;n9291151 said:
I agree. CDPR didn't hire KyleRowley, well known for Quantum Break man, for developing an FPS. So it's a TPS.
BTW, QB is a great shooter, apart from all controversial qualities of this game.


You can't base it off that alone.

Dmytro Ishchenko and Catalin Ion are animators on Cyberpunk and they primarily worked on first person shooters at Crytek before joining CDPR.

Here's a reel for Mr. Ishchenko:https://vimeo.com/132410196

Now granted you could very well be right and it is a third person only game, but I don't think we should let the past work of the devs be an indicator of the direction they will take on Cyberpunk.

Also Kyle Rowley worked on Homefront 2, which is an FPS.
 
Meccanical;n9319571 said:
You can't base it off that alone.

Dmytro Ishchenko and Catalin Ion are animators on Cyberpunk and they primarily worked on first person shooters at Crytek before joining CDPR.

Here's a reel for Mr. Ishchenko:https://vimeo.com/132410196

Now granted you could very well be right and it is a third person only game, but I don't think we should let the past work of the devs be an indicator of the direction they will take on Cyberpunk.

Also Kyle Rowley worked on Homefront 2, which is an FPS.

Do we have any "list" of who works in gameplay department? That's the N1 enigma here.
 
A lot of FPS and TPS (action game) devs around there. Does anyone have experience on RPG's (and I mean in more systemically indepth ones, not these modern genre-pizza posers)?
 
Top Bottom