Gameplay - depth vs complexity vs fun

+

Gameplay - depth vs complexity vs fun


  • Total voters
    273
KyleRowley;n9288281 said:
Come for the Story, stay for the Gameplay

Woah a CDPR employer is in this thread? It's my chance to ask the real important question we're all waiting for...are polish beers really that good?

Welcome to this thread, we have jokes, speculations and market analysis.

Innovation plus product industrialization usually equals money. It seems like the company you're a part of values creative freedom, and that's very important in achieving innovation.

So CDPR is focusing on gameplay too ;)

kofeiiniturpa;n9287891 said:
You don't think it was a meaningful beginning? The foundation...? And fire?
The erect homo is sad to hear that. He tried so hard to become us, and this is the thanks for it.

The Homos didn't make fire, while they were the ones who first used stone tools, the Homo Erectus were the ones behind that whole fire thing, not to mention Erectus improved said tools to levels never seen before.

Did you know that humans like we know today existed at the same time as neanderthals? And did you know that these humans used to have sexual relantionships with neanderthals? Can you imagine being so lonely that you fucked monkeys (multiple times over thousands of years)?
 
Last edited:
Lisbeth_Salander;n9289661 said:
Woah a CDPR employer is in this thread?

They watch these forums steadily.

CDPR still puts Story first and that is a Good Thing. It's why we're all here - it's what sets the Witcher head and shoulders apart from other RPGs. Mature, rich storytelling. That is truly key to their vision and success. Don't expect that to change.

Note I say story, not role-playing. That term is too vague and obviously a lot of people here define it by game mechanics over storytelling - and include their personal quality preference as a border. "Didn't like it - then it's not role-playing!". So, story first.

But that doesn't mean gameplay is far behind. You can see a clear improvement and quality boost in gameplay depth from Witcher 1 to Witcher 3, in terms of what the systems can handle. Would I have liked to fight a Royal Griffin and a pack of wolves at the same time using potions, SIgns and sword in Witcher 1? No. Clumsy. And I liked Witcher 1.

Definitions are as limiting as they are convenient. Look instead at CDPR goals for their games and decide if you like what they've done.

CDPR allows you to set the gameplay difficulty to be a non-issue, so you can play their story out. If you want a challenge, great. That's doable. If you want a fun romp with a sword and magic and some great writing, also doable.

It would be a pity if you forgo this experience because you just -had- to have a game that plays a certain method you find preferable and are unwilling to compromise or change.

I look forward to seeing what they do with the PnP rules and Dark Future setting. My mind is open as to what they end up with, but I feel confident I will enjoy it as a tool for exploring their new world.

 
Lisbeth_Salander;n9289661 said:
Did you know that humans like we know today existed at the same time as neanderthals? And did you know that these humans used to have sexual relantionships with neanderthals?

Yes, I did know that. Did you know that due to that mixed breeding, you might be partly neanderthal too?

----------------

I don't think anyone's really opposing story emphasis, most want a good reactive story and most (I would like to think) know that is CDPR's stronger suit (no better time to expand their horizons on that than now). But what I am opposed to is the often implied idea, that Cyberpunk would and should be restricted and dictated by the way Witcher - or another currently popular series - was realized, that it simply couldn't stand on its own feet doing its own thing (that it almost shouldn't even try) without ripping off a neighboring franchises design, principles and goals and using those as a crutch; and people should just accept the inevitable.
 
Last edited:
kofeiiniturpa;n9290181 said:
it simply couldn't stand on its own feet doing its own thing (that it almost shouldn't even try) without ripping off a neighboring franchises design, principles and goals and using those as a crutch; and people should just accept the inevitable.


Yeah, but what does that mean? There is some Holy Grail of gameplay?

Whether it's heavily FPS, TPS, TB, RTwP or even RTS-based, those are all using existing frameworks, tried and true. Are you proposing some kind of completely new gameplay method and foundation outside of any of those?
 
Sardukhar;n9290311 said:
Yeah, but what does that mean? There is some Holy Grail of gameplay?

Whether it's heavily FPS, TPS, TB, RTwP or even RTS-based, those are all using existing frameworks, tried and true. Are you proposing some kind of completely new gameplay method and foundation outside of any of those?

No, of course there's no such thing. But there is a universe of different ways to design gameplay. Taking pointers and exploribg frameworks; mixing, matching...

But there's no thinking outside the box anymore, no exploring the possibilities nor the more unconventional solutions. Not being immediately familiar from other big things from the past five years is a red cloth. Suggesting taking pointers from something older and you just want to copy design from 30 years ago, baaaad and clumsy, and rarely is any thought given on what possible merit there could be, did those older games do anything at all well that has nowadays been dropped for some reason, and how could that be matched and intertwinef with modern sensibilities. No. It's always taking the safe and familiar and safely profitable. And that's why nearly all these games look and play and feel exactly the same, what ever nuances made this popular but nor that.

It's pretty frustrating. Knowing that even if there's promise and potential, even great deals of it, it's probably not going to be used because... reasons.

I'm often accused of being too old school oriented, but there's always the misconception that I'd want to turn the clock back. People see stats being mentioned and think "oh, he just wants to jump in s time machine for the game to be a 80's/90's 2D TB game... again". And that has never been the case.
 
Last edited:
kofeiiniturpa;n9290411 said:
and you just want to copy design from 30 years ago, baaaad and clumsy, and rarely is any thought given on what possible merit there could be, did those older games do anything at all well that has nowadays been dropped for some reason.


Well, it does in fact sound like you just want to turn the clock back and prefer copying from older games as opposed to newer ones.

That's not better - it's just different, Kofe. Your preferences instead of, say, the DS or GTA crowds.

I certainly can think of few things from older games I need to keep, gameplay-wise.

Now, story and dialogue-wise, yeah, no question it would be nice to have a wider response set than we typically see - but again, playing Planescape Torment just after Torment Numenera and Fallout 4 (again) as well as Bloodlines (again) I just don't see that much variation in most speech from Yes/No/Relevant Question 1/Relevant Question 2/Follow-up.

Bloodlines did it as well, for me, as any game short of Planescape Torment - or Witcher 3. That's not gameplay - that's just quality writing.

Edit: now this THIS, is turning back the clock. Wowzers. https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/20...-is-a-crazily-tough-nut-to-crack/#more-467847
 
Last edited:
Sardukhar;n9290451 said:
Well, it does in fact sound like you just want to turn the clock back and prefer copying from older games as opposed to newer ones.

But this is exactly what I was talking about. You are reading the words, but not what I'm saying. You found the phrase that pinched you in a wrong way and stopped there. The quote you respond to is hopelessly out of context and indeed sounds as you describe.

It's not uncommon, mind you. I've had to explain and explain again my stances and ideals in mainstream boards like this for years (less so in boards more inclined towards niche markets), so this is not a "learn2read" type of comment. Perhaps people expect something more obvious and then get confuzzled, or perhaps I'm just not short of incomprehensible to all others but myself.

That's not better - it's just different, Kofe. Your preferences instead of, say, the DS or GTA crowds.

Nothing I suggest needs to be universally "better", it isn't supposed to. But it - assuming you'e not still thinking about time machines - is a method of discovering a compromise. If it's a no go and the DS & GTA crowds are an easier fix... so be it, they will get it and that's that. That's not for me though. All I can do is try to push for what I think I can tolerate and have some fun with.

I don't want to be a pain in the ass, I'm not expecting or asking for a "perfect game for me", but I can't pretend I'd be fine with something I know I will not be, or not try to push for what I'd consider an improvement on something lukewarm as an idea.

I certainly can think of few things from older games I need to keep, gameplay-wise.

Want me to guess? I'm bad at guessing. Considering the context here... I'm lousy at it.

Now, story and dialogue-wise, yeah, no question it would be nice to have a wider response set than we typically see - but again, playing Planescape Torment just after Torment Numenera and Fallout 4 (again) as well as Bloodlines (again) I just don't see that much variation in most speech from Yes/No/Relevant Question 1/Relevant Question 2/Follow-up.

Bloodlines did it as well, for me, as any game short of Planescape Torment - or Witcher 3. That's not gameplay - that's just quality writing.

It's system concept that matters. Choosing the right things to say (if it's not colourcoded for you) and building your character to be able to say certain things is definitely gameplay. Quality and style of writing is another matter.

Edit: now this THIS, is turning back the clock. Wowzers. https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/201...k/#more-467847

It truly is. I'm actually playing the old Wizardries at the moment and waiting if that thing ever gets patched to a playable state. It looks like it might be a fun game when it works.
 
Last edited:
Nothing about game design is easy ... contrary to popular belief.

No system (stats, skills, combat, dialog, etc.) works truly independently of the others. By selecting (or non selecting) any one system you automatically restrict your options with the others.

For instance, if you select a system with lots of character stats each stat has to be somehow meaningful in one, or more, character skills; else why bother having that (or those) stats? And if you go for minimal, or no, character stats while that doesn't necessarily restrict the number of skills that can be in the game it does mean it's highly probable one of those limited stats will become FAR more important then the others, creating balance issues.
How do/must those multiple (or few) stats figure into the games combat and dialog systems?
If you have say only Strength, Dexterity, and Intelligence as character stats then anyone with a high strength probably does more damage in melee and has more "hit points" (or however the game allocates damage). This totally precludes the little guy thats tough as nails or the big guy with a glass jaw as character options.

Most people (who've never actually designed a game) tend to view each system in a game as independent from each of the others thus fail to appreciate things are rarely as easy as they imagine them to be.
 
Last edited:
Sardukhar;n9290451 said:
That's not gameplay - that's just quality writing.
Dialogs are the game. It's a decision making game that takes RPG system and so written player character into aknowledgement during these decisions aswell as how player LARPs through the game.
Sardukhar;n9290311 said:
Whether it's heavily FPS, TPS, TB, RTwP or even RTS-based, those are all using existing frameworks, tried and true. Are you proposing some kind of completely new gameplay method and foundation outside of any of those?
Well there's always Fallout: New Vegas(+mods with features of your taste) to your service, as a reminder what kind of open-world sandbox RPG CP2077 should aim to be.
 
metalmaniac21;n9291121 said:
Well there's always Fallout: New Vegas

True enough. Although, with little more emphasis on the passive and active effects of character stats (combat, non combat), more character based world interaction, and more comprehensive VATS, and it would've been excellent. Now it's just good with unfixed taints smelling of its older brother.
 
Developing open-world action RPGs in general seems more challenging than many other genres because they try to be so much. They should be story/choice first. That is the heart of an RPG. The whole purpose of role playing is to inhabit a character and make choices as them to develop a coherent and moving story. They're basically the most bad ass choose your own adventure novels ever. There are some gameplay designs that play directly into this. Writing, characters, animation, voice acting, etc (in so far as it is the foundation of the story). The dialogue system is a gameplay element that is incredibly important. I know it's a controversial opinion in these parts ... but I really think DA:I had a REALLY good dialogue system. The only quibble I had with the system is that it was hard to fail in that game's dialogue ... which is an issue IMO. However that's a design decision that's easy to change. The choice and consequence system is also crucial to this and CDPR have done it well within games but have frankly been sub-par in carrying c&c between games if there is a series.

Other non-story related designs are somewhat less important in my opinion due to the nature of the RPGs ... but only in the original conception of the game. It's important to build around the story and choices and consequences ... so that the focus of the game is appropriate and it feels like it has depth. Once you have that core foundation and focus on the story and the players choices within it ... all the gameplay stuff becomes just as important.

Character customization, amazing visuals, world size, quest design, level design, point of view, combat mechanics, UI, HUD, solid sound, companion availability, enemy AI, crafting, etc are all frankly expected within the genre these days. And rightly so because one needs these elements to create an immersive world that the story sits within. All action RPGs face this challenge. I personally would like a blend of (1) witcher 3 quality story/open world regions/writing/quest design/level design/visuals/sound/characters (2) A mix of ME3 (TPS/companions), Horizon Zero Dawn (enemy AI) & GMSV (stealth) influenced combat, (3) FO4 inspired crafting ... I really liked that for all the games other flaws, (4) a decent faction system like FO:NV or Morrowind (5) character customization similar to the CP2020 PnP (but less options - let's be real) that includes a life path system (6) a Deus Ex like cyberpunk milieu/world.

Cyberpunks most interesting place for new systems in my opinion is hacking/cyberspace/braindancing as well as economy which are really important to the cyberpunk milieu (high tech and low life right?). These sort of things have never really been done well IMO in a video game. It's where the most outside the box thinking would be needed to really elevate gameplay design. I think it does add an additional challenge that other games of this style have not had to face. So that does add an extra challenge.

Am willing to definitively say it will be the hardest game to make ever? No. Am I willing to see it's probably in the conversation? Yes.
 
Last edited:
kofeiiniturpa;n9290411 said:
But there's no thinking outside the box anymore, no exploring the possibilities nor the more unconventional solutions. No. It's always taking the safe and familiar and safely profitable.


If the point is to create innovation in the gaming industry, does it matter if it's based on old or new games? What should matter is if said innovation fits in, works and sells well.

A game can appear to be supperficially casual, and have its marketing focused on that thin layer to appeal to the majority of gamers. You got to fool the audience in entering the circus before showing what's inside. Then after playing a few minutes, that deepness will be presented to the players.

The costumers are only scared of hardcore stuff because they didn't tasted it yet. They see it as boring and complex. This is called the James Cameron Aproach, that old rich bastard sold to the whole world a movie about blue aliens agains't robots, but in the end the audience is was caught in surprise when they started asking some deep philosophical questions, guess what? Avatar made 2.7 billion fucking dollars son. Avatar 2 will probably be no different because people didn't forgot the first one.

Why does the majority of developers doens't use this strategy you ask? Why are they afraid to go deep and realise that's economically easier to not go deep, since they could use this whole "deep/hardcore game pretending to be superficially casual" aproach? Cause they see the whole gamers demographic as a complete different thing from the movie theatre goers. This is caused by the simple fact that no AAA has gone that deep before. It's not only important to go deep to please the hardcore gamers, what makes costumers keep buying the same product over and over again, is how powerfull its emotional impact can be, in other words, how long and how much does the game/movie entertain them.
  1. If you gotta sell an idea, you got to make it simple.
  2. If you gotta make sure your costumers keep buying said product, you gotta make it deep and entertaining.

Most companies only sell litteral superficial games, focusing only in the idea, cause it costs less to them. But heres where it becomes serious, CDPR needs to prove to the market, therefore there's a big chance of us seeing them both valuing the idea and making a deep product. CDPR is going agains't the tides, and they're going deep.

That's why CDPR has bet this whole 10 years on hardcore gamers, because they're a dying breed and they're loyal. What all these gaming companies doens't get is that casuals are no different from hardcore gamers, while the casual is inittially persuaded by the simple idea he will eventually be taken away by how fun, immersive and replayable the game or movie is.
CDPR has already conquered the hardcores, there's only casuals left, which represents the majority of the gaming population.


How to make casuals buy the game?

Implementing a marketing strategy that makes the game pretend to be casual and simple, while also focusing on its hardcore aspects.

And make a game with a casual impression, but with hardcore elements that are easily accessible to the casuals. It's all about appearing to be "dumbing down" without cuttin off any content, unlike Bethes... did. So, in fact the game will have deep stuff *cough* Rockstar *cough*

Perhaps if they follow the Cameron's Approach Marcin Iwinski will be the James Cameron of the gaming industry.






 
Lisbeth_Salander;n9293711 said:
If the point is to create innovation in the gaming industry, does it matter if it's based on old or new games? What should matter is if said innovation fits in, works and sells well.

Yes it does matter, because a lot of potentially fun design has been sacrificed in the altar of streamlining and never brought into "today". You shouldn't neglect either side because you are then losing something; the old games just have been neglected more and that's why I'm bringing it up more. Your take otherwise sounds like that of a marketing analyst or a lobbyist, I don't know if that's intentional (or if I'm biased enough to think it does). But anyhow, money men killed the innovation in the industry by bloating it to similiar levels with movie industry and raising developement costs and thus also revenue expectations to ridiculous numbers.

My desire is only to have a game that I can honestly say I'm having fun with. If you go all out oldschool you can be sure you won't sell 6-20 million copies, if you go all out new school you get what you got yesterday. But if you put your mind to mixing oldschool design with modern sensibilities (in a more potent manner than just tokenism or fanservice), I'm fairly sure you can still sell the game, and if you are good and creative with it, you might even start a trend. Despite what it looks - and I've said this before - I don't believe that majority of the market is really as shallow as they seem, that they can not accept anything but the soulless repetition-hell design mentality blockbusters.

Funny thing about that typo you have, I can't help but imagine it's intentional and that you are talking about tailors when you say costumers.

How to make casuals buy the game?

Should these "casuals" be a target audience in the first place? I think clarity on what and how with an interesting down to earth presentation would be quite enough to lure in interested people, some more wide-perspective casuals among them.

Rawls;n9292621 said:
They should be story/choice first. That is the heart of an RPG. The whole purpose of role playing is to inhabit a character and make choices as them to develop a coherent and moving story. They're basically the most bad ass choose your own adventure novels ever.

I really have to disagree with that, I guess you guessed that. Not to be a douche for the sake of having an argument, but it always makes me itch the wrong way when these things are reduced down to less than half of what could be done. Giving the message that there is this one thing above all else, and the rest is... "thereabouts", no big deal. Not that story and story choices don't matter, they do, a great deal. But there is much more to a roleplaying game than a choose your own adventure "listen-about".

I don't think an RPG needs (that doesn't mean it shouldn't have) any more of a storyline than what is required for the role to have a motivation and a goal, the rest can well be pure gameplay (which includes the ability to express the character the way you've built him/her and have the game react to that; but it need not at all be a heavily scripted story or a choose your own adventure, just a set of reactions to what you experience and do if you do it). Ideally there is more to roleplaying than guiding him throug a heavyhanded storyline, there is more to a character than his narrative choices.
 
Last edited:
kofeiiniturpa;n9294581 said:
But there is much more to a roleplaying game than a choose your own adventure "listen-about".
I said exactly that later in my post. It was my entire point that the other stuff is just as important once you've created the central narrative design. I'm not sure what you're disagreeing with. You think it's better to create the systems and gameplay designs and then just add in a story that fits them?

The story and choice component is the core of all my favorite RPGs. The center. The mechanics and all the rest are essential to making a good game as well. However, if you start with focus on that rather than the story, it often comes off feeling empty in my experience.

kofeiiniturpa;n9294581 said:
I don't think an RPG needs (that doesn't mean it shouldn't have) any more of a storyline than what is required for the role to have a motivation and a goal, the rest can well be pure gameplay (which includes the ability to express the character the way you've built him/her and have the game react to that; but it need not at all be a heavily scripted story or a choose your own adventure, just a set of reactions to what you experience and do if you do it). Ideally there is more to roleplaying than guiding him throug a heavyhanded storyline, there is more to a character than his narrative choices.

I guess we'll just agree to disagree. A great story is much more important to me than being able to have numerous ways to express yourself or specific gameplay options. All of my favorite games have a great story at their core. Also, story-centric does not mean heavy handed storyline. Having space to breath and a story to tell are both important, but the story is more important IMO. I've enjoyed games that had a great story and very little rpg mechanics (the last of us) ... I've never enjoyed an RPG with lots of fun gameplay options and a poor story. Optimally you have both, but story ought to be the center of the game.
 
Last edited:
Rawls;n9294711 said:
You think it's better to create the systems and gameplay designs and then just add in a story that fits them?

Yes. Pretty much. They go in tandem to some length of course, but in a game gameplay should always triumph.

Rawls;n9294711 said:
I guess we'll just agree to disagree.

That's fair. It's all opinions here anyway.

Rawls;n9294711 said:
The story and choice component is the core of all my favorite RPGs. The center. The mechanics and all the rest are essential to making a good game as well. However, if you start with focus on that rather than the story, it often comes off feeling empty in my experience.

My experience is the opposite. The game systems are always the core. Always. The story is the icing on the cake. It can be both subtle or generous (and it better be good which ever way it goes), but it is still the icing. Good story can not help bad game design, but good game design can excuse bad storytelling. Since, you know, you have to play the game in order to get the story and in between the story portions too, you can't ignore it, but you can ignore the story if it is bad and your having fun with the gameplay.

I've had the experience that games where story comes first have almost always been barren as experiences since the gameplay has been put in the background. Planescape Torment also suffered from this to some degree, as did the recent Tides of Numenera.
 
kofeiiniturpa;n9294751 said:
as did the recent Tides of Numenera.
Which unlike PS:T, didn't have none, no good writing and story, no good gameplay. #NoThreadWithoutShittingOnInXile
kofeiiniturpa;n9294751 said:
but good game design can excuse bad storytelling.
It's true to some degree. Recent Blizzard games have bad story and storytelling but their games are still playble and fairly good, to some degree again. For RPGs, however, it doesn't work, do you really know an RPG with great gameplay but trash storyline?
 
Yeah, an RPG with good gameplay and crap story isn't much of an RPG. It's just...a game. Tetris, anyone?

You do not need good gameplay for a great RPG - Planescape Torment. That's bare minimum. just-whats-needed game systems to let you interface with the story.

With an actual GM, you don't need any game mechanics at all, even online. Many is the time we've played online,using voice or text clients. Many is the session we haven't needed to roll or check stats.

So no, gameplay is not first for a good RPG. Great gameplay and crappy story/character development makes for a crappy RPG and a weaker game.

Simple gameplay and a rich setting and a good story...hello Vampire Bloodlines.
 
metalmaniac21;n9294841 said:
#NoThreadWithoutShittingOnInXile

Oh, you're part that group. I hope you're not going to tell me with bright eyes and straight face that Inxile is the worst thing that happened to RPG's because TTON didn't reach the stars it aimed. I've seen pretty colourful expressions of disappointment over ir not becoming the new PST. :D

For RPGs, however, it doesn't work, do you really know an RPG with great gameplay but trash storyline?

Of course it works. You've probably played the same games and it's amazing if you haven't noticed it.
Might & Magic series and Wizardry series' both have good games in them. Fallout and Fallout 2 have core storylines that really are nothing to write home about. Icewind Dale games didn't have much in the way of story. Temple of Elemental Evil. To name a few.

These all have cool worlds to explore and interesting characters to interact with, and neat gameplay to boot, but the core storylines in all are quite forgettable. Them being good RPG's comes from elsewhere.

---------

All in all I don't understand at all where this notion even comes from that roleplaying game means "story tyme with uncle Donald" with all else swappable and/or negligable.

And if the narrative is not like reeeely in your face, it's suddenly equalent to Tetris.

I mean... Of course there needs to be a narrative string to make the role relevant and to give a reason to play it and all the better if it's a good story, but... Seriously now?

And Sard, you can sit down with a group and do as you described, that's valid and fair and fun, but are you really playing "a game" anymore rather than just having a themed socializing event...
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom