Perhaps I'll just give you 20 minutes to edit that post to the form you wish it to be. Then I'll start reading it.
kofeiiniturpa;n9542281 said:
Cutting off content makes things simpler and with that it attracs the majority of casuals. It's possible to sell a game with depth, but guess what? It's easier to not do that, because by making a game with deep story and gameplay takes more time and resources than making a game without any of it. So here lies the question, if it's both easier to sell and to make a dumbed down game, why chose to make the opposite? Because it's also a strategy to aim at those gamers who are being ignored by the industry, something that CDPR will probably do with CP2077.
As a gaming company you can either:
1. Make a game without any depth. A great marketing campaign is necessary because you will need to fool gamers into buying your piece of shit game, but they will notice how shitty it is after 2 hours playing. ("No Man's Sky" difficulty to develop, kind of easy to sell at first but it will certainly ruin your company's reputation forever once your players know the truth)
2. Cut off a lot of content by simplyfying the game while making it accessible and fun to most gamers (easy to sell and easy to develop because it doens't take too mutch time and resouces, but the company might lose the hardcore gamers but will gain the casual ones) (A huge portion of the gaming industry is in this category Including Bethesda)
3. cut off a few necessary content, but try to make what's "complex" seem more fun, thus give the game depth story or gameplay wise (medium difficulty to develop and to sell) (CDPR is only in this category because they make deep stories in their games, they wouldn't be here because of the gameplay aspect. I hope that with CP2077, CDPR can completely belong to this category)
4. Put every complex idea the dev team came up with but doens't try to make it look fun to anyone (medium difficulty to develop, very tough to sell)
5. Put every/most complex ideas the dev team came up with but also try to make it fun and accessible to most gamers ("Dante Must Die" difficulty to develop, medium difficulty to sell) (only gods and insane CEOs can do this type of games) (CDPR might go in this category with Cyberpunk 2077)
6. Make a game with infinite possibilities ("Matrix simulation" difficulty to develop, difficulty to sell: ???) (Only Super intelligent AIs are able to build such simulations *cough*...I mean games)
I believe Bethesda was a number 3 once, and they probably tried to keep hardcore players. But at one point they questioned themselves, "hey these hardcores are the minority and we should focus on the casual majority, so fuck hardcores man. Lets become MILLIONAIRES!". So they went to the number 2 developer category. CDPR on the other side has a huge opportunity to please both sides,considering the huge success CP2020 had, so they might try to please those who bought the PNP game, but who knows if they're going to keep being a number 3 category...
kofeiiniturpa;n9542751 said:
I make the greatest posts. I'm a very high energy person. They're huge! I got the best posts, believe me!
Plot Twist: I do it on porpouse.
Last edited:
Lisbeth_Salander;n9542721 said:
So the gist of it is to explain and showcase things better? Is that it? Initial presentation and explanation?
I agree. That does not givve me the example I asked for (the crossbow in Witcher 3 is hardly an example of "disguised depth"), but I do agree with the idea you gave now.
I do tend to think, though, that "casuals" what ever that means to anyone, usually means people not really interested in the fineries of gamedesign as long as they are able to have easy and relatively fast fun. I.e. there are Civilization "casuals", for example, that only stroll through the campaigns and then the HC's that calcualte everything before making a move; there are Fallout 2 casuals that set the difficulties to "wimpy" and stroll through the story, etc, so it's not really all about complexity or the lack thereof. But I do still think that "everyone" shouldn't be the potential audience (ever), casual or not, only those who can potentially also appreciate the given design and the sort of game that is being made, again "casual" or not. I do have some faith in humanity still as much as to think that those who care not to learn how to play a bit more comlex game than what the mainstream churns out by the dozens in a year, are not as big a crowd that they need to be specifically catered to. There is a range of people, it's not just these few proud representatives of the glorious master race here and those millions of dummies over there.
Lisbeth_Salander;n9542771 said:
Lisbeth_Salander;n9542721 said:
You're kidding, right? That awful, awful smart-phone-inspired thing that was clumsier to use than a breadknife as a wrench and took more time to browse than the LoTR trilogy's extended version?
Seriously, though, that thing really is awful and clumsy.
Lisbeth_Salander;n9542771 said:
"Purpose"
Yeah, I didn't think it happens by accident.
Last edited:
kofeiiniturpa;n9542861 said:So the gist of it is to explain and showcase things better? Is that it? Initial presentation and explanation?
I agree. That does not givve me the example I asked for (the crossbow in Witcher 3 is hardly an example of "disguised depth"), but I do agree with the idea you gave now.
I do tend to think, though, that "casuals" what ever that means to anyone, usually means people not really interested in the fineries of gamedesign as long as they are able to have easy and relatively fast fun. I.e. there are Civilization "casuals", for example, that only stroll through the campaigns and then the HC's that calcualte everything before making a move; there are Fallout 2 casuals that set the difficulties to "wimpy" and stroll through the story, etc, so it's not really all about complexity or the lack thereof. But I do still think that "everyone" shouldn't be the potential audience (ever), casual or not, only those who can potentially also appreciate the given design and the sort of game that is being made, again "casual" or not. I do have some faith in humanity still as much as to think that those who care not to learn how to play a bit more comlex game than what the mainstream churns out by the dozens in a year, are not as big a crowd that they need to be specifically catered to. There is a range of people, it's not just these few proud representatives of the glorious master race here and those millions of dummies over there.
You're kidding, right? That awful, awful smart-phone-inspired thing that was clumsier to use than a breadknife as a wrench and took more time to browse than the LoTR trilogy's extended version?
Seriously, though, that thing really is awful and clumsy.
"Purpose"
Yeah, I didn't think it happens by accident.
Yes. Skyrim menu was great for casuals, that's what I mean.
kofeiiniturpa;n9542861 said:
Oh it's not? Ok then. When you think about it, it gets really hard to think of an example in the gaming industry since nobody does it.
Last edited:
Lisbeth_Salander;n9543011 said:
To my recollection even the "casuals" berated it back then....
Today people are just used to it. "Mods will fix.." and so on... Though, I don't think they do more than patch little faults... if even that.
Last edited:
Considering the many gadgets we could be able to acquire in this futuristic world of Cyberpunk, I believe we should be able to have a more of "tactical" combat when controlling these gadgets (Drones, Remote weapons, etc.) while maintaning the typical FPS gameplay when in control of the character itself.
A good exemple of this idea, would be the Watch Dogs 2 Gameplay, very similar to this propose.
A good exemple of this idea, would be the Watch Dogs 2 Gameplay, very similar to this propose.
kofeiiniturpa;n9543031 said:
20 million copies sold, sure they did...Its not perfect, but its an example to how to make complicated and boring aspects more fun to casuals, of course that in this case hardcores didn't enjoy it that much. Developers will have to make features more accessible, not exactly like skyrim but on the same road, but of course...without dumbing games down.
Lion_Br;n9543131 said:
This is what always rubs me the wrong way when talking about RPG's. It's like saying "forget the RPG when combat starts, resume when it's over". I understood your point, and admittedly cherrypicked a quote, but nonetheless, I always feel the need to repel that certain ideal that seems to command the line of thinking with designing these sorts of games.
Lisbeth_Salander;n9543161 said:
You think that it was the interface that commanded the decision of purchase?
It was a minor thing, but a thing people noticed neagatively still. Bethesda's interfaces have been widely overhauled since Oblivion (don't remember if Morrowind had that treatment too) but console gamers have not been able to even if they'd wanted to.
On the note of Skyrim sales, even that game got ciricised for not learning from New Vegas....
Last edited:
kofeiiniturpa;n9543191 said:
I believe this system would be benefitial to the game, considering that The Witcher series had a similar style of combat, whereas the combat was precise and tactical, it was also simple and easy to master, and that's what I belive they want to make again with Cyberpunk.
Lion_Br;n9543211 said:
The good thing is that CP2077 has a great sourcebook for gameplay that is CP2020. So its gameplay might have lots of depth.
kofeiiniturpa;n9543191 said:
No. What influeced it were lots of design decisions following the same route I mentioned.
Last edited:
Lisbeth_Salander;n9543221 said:
Indeed it does, that's why I believe they will try to bring up as much of the original source as possible, while in the same time, trying to bring a new style to the table.
My question is: How much is the game mechanic going to resemble the original game, in a world where CD PROJEKT RED is still known for The Witcher and it's gameplay?
Lion_Br;n9543211 said:
I hope they'll strive for something a bit different. I'd hate to have CP2077 a refurbished version of Witcher 3... with guns. I do think there's room for more creative and more iterative design.
Lisbeth_Salander;n9543221 said:
I know what made Skyrim sell. What's your point? Mine was only that the interface was fucking awful and wasn't a factor in sales.
Last edited:
Lion_Br;n9543231 said:
Three things might help answer that question:
1. Mike Pondsmith confirming in this interview that "all classes will be in the game":
2. And this old official cyberpunk blog article from 2013:
http://cyberpunk.net/blog/mechanisms/
3. And there is of course various times where CDPR recruited new people to work in gameplay, which probably indicate that changes are coming to the gameplay aspect, more importantly Kyle Rowley, who worked in Quantum Break. The subreddit https://www.reddit.com/r/cyberpunkgame/ constantly updates with new information about these kinds of things.
Last edited:
Lion_Br;n9543311 said:
Absolutely! And more importantly to me: we may have tons of different gameplay styles.
This might interest you, guy worked on far cry and watch dogs 2:
Peter Gelencser, Senior Level Designer of The Witcher 3, is back at CDPR working on CP2077 after 2 years at Ubisoft Toronto!
https://www.reddit.com/r/cyberpunkga...signer_of_the/
Last edited:
Lisbeth_Salander;n9543361 said:
Ubisoft might make simple and even incredibly similar games every year, but I can't deny that some mechanics in their games are pretty fun. I hope Peter might be able to use the best of what he learned in his experience in Ubisoft to try and bring new gameplay experiences in Cyberpunk.
Lion_Br;n9543381 said:
"Fun" be carefull when using this word around here. Ubisoft surely does have some fun gameplay mechanics, of course that they don't bring new things to the table very often...but they should.