Gameplay - depth vs complexity vs fun

+

Gameplay - depth vs complexity vs fun


  • Total voters
    273
So far, indications is that CP2077 will be in both first person and 3rd person perspective. And that is information which has been around since atleast 2013.

Of course... things might have changed since then... but untill anything else has been said, I will asume it will be both.
 
RLKing1969;n9320691 said:
Serious question here: Are you going to be using the F.N.F.F. combat system, or a variation thereof in C.P 2077?

Unfortunatly... nobody knows... the amount of information about the game is so little, and vague enough, that it could almost be anything at this point.

Some things they say leans more towards the kinds of games that CDPR's game Witcher is, and other things they say leans more towards a much deeper RPG that leans much closer to pnp rpg's then most videogames do these days, and other things might suggest some kind of middleground... but... in the end we just don't know.
 
I think we can assume (yes assume ... not know) any official, and cannon (i.e. not V3 or CyberGeneration) supplements to CP2020 will probably be used.
So, yes, maybe, probably F.N.F.F.
 
Considering the majority of gamers are perhaps casuals. How would it be possible to make a game with hardcore elements that makes success with casuals? Would it be worth it to please both demographics that are at opposite ends?

What do you guys and girls think.

 
Don't aim too high and you have the room for experimenting a bit more. Aim for those "casuals" and you are forced to play it safe. I do not think these "casuals" should be targeted as an audience at all, they have the 90% of the industry in their pocket catering precisely to them already, and they will come around anyway if the design is good and the game starts "trending".

I do believe most people -- well if not most, a good lot anyway -- is open to giving a chance for new (to them) experiences if it is indeed well designed. Even if the it isn't directly aimed at them.
 
Last edited:
kofeiiniturpa;n9324891 said:
Don't aim too high and you have the room for experimenting a bit more. Aim for those "casuals" and you are forced to play it safe. I do not think these "casuals" should not be targeted as an audience at all, they have the 90% of the industry in their pocket catering precisely to them already, and they will come around anyway if the design is good and the game starts "trending".

I do believe most people -- well if not most, a good lot anyway -- is open to giving a chance for new (to them) experiences if it is indeed well designed. Even if the it isn't directly aimed at them.

Totally agree with this!
 
kofeiiniturpa;n9324891 said:
Don't aim too high and you have the room for experimenting a bit more. Aim for those "casuals" and you are forced to play it safe. I do not think these "casuals" should be targeted as an audience at all, they have the 90% of the industry in their pocket catering precisely to them already, and they will come around anyway if the design is good and the game starts "trending".

I do believe most people -- well if not most, a good lot anyway -- is open to giving a chance for new (to them) experiences if it is indeed well designed. Even if the it isn't directly aimed at them.

For games to start "trending" doens't mean that they will sell.

By your logic Witcher 3 would have gained enough attention from casuals to be in the top 10 most sold games of 2015 because of its graphics or design, which didn't happen. You're trying to find a middle ground among all the gaming demographic, which is a nice thing, but perhaps the gameplay is the most important asset that can persuade these so "flexible" players or even the casuals to play CP2077.




My proposal is not to make a COD clone, but to make a hardcore game with more acessible assets so it can still appeal to both casuals and hardcores. To make the gameplay more acessible to the casuals means to make the gameplay less scary to them. What hardcores call complex and fun, casuals call complicated and boring. To make what is "complex" to become "fun" in the eyes of the majority is perhaps the most important thing CDPR should do, for doing that they would preserve the current demographic while conquering new ones.




You can't completely ignore a demographic and expect different results doing the same thing over and over again. My speculation is that what will trully get the attention of the majority/casual demographic besides the gameplay itself, is perhaps also the multiplayer in CP2077, specially if it's integrated with the open world such as GTA: O, because that's an asset that dominated the gaming industry.

Not caring about casuals is not wise at all. CDPR's CEOs certainly care about them, as much as they care about their current demographic. CDPR can just pretend to play it safe, while in fact they would go all in for the hardcore stuff, this way they can aim high and aim for both casuals and hardcores. That's how they'll win.
 
Last edited:
Lisbeth_Salander;n9325611 said:
To make the gameplay more acessible to the casuals means to make the gameplay less scary to them.

In other words, more streamlined, prechewed and predigested. You can't win here unless that's what you want. It has been on the table for other developers too, several times (trying to make a complex game for a simple audience). Bethesda's excuse - for example - was that "there's a lot of complexity under the hood", which of course is useless to the player if it can't be played. Aiming dead in the middle is going to get both groups unhappy as it is basically the worst bits of both sides. You can't win here unless you take a clear stance towards either side. One of the sides is more profitable, though, as the other only loses them a segment. Or so it has seemed to be thus far.

Clear stance, though, does not always mean complete contrary to the opposing stance; just a clear preference.

current CDPR's demographic.

That seems to me to be mostly storygoers and sightseers.

Lisbeth_Salander;n9325611 said:
You can't completely ignore a demographic and expect different results doing the same thing over and over again.

Indeed. That's why I will eject immediately if this thing starts to turn sour. I've wasted enough time and money taking the bait in the past as a member of a starving segment of the market.
 
kofeiiniturpa;n9325771 said:
In other words, more streamlined, prechewed and predigested. You can't win here unless that's what you want. It has been on the table for other developers too, several times (trying to make a complex game for a simple audience). Bethesda's excuse - for example - was that "there's a lot of complexity under the hood", which of course is useless to the player if it can't be played. Aiming dead in the middle is going to get both groups unhappy as it is basically the worst bits of both sides. You can't win here unless you take a clear stance towards either side. One of the sides is more profitable, though, as the other only loses them a segment. Or so it has seemed to be thus far. Clear stance, though, does not always mean complete contrary to the opposing stance; just a clear preference.

If no other company did something like this before, it doens't mean that CDPR can't use the strategy I said. You can make a game more accessible to casuals without cutting off content like Bethesda did. Removing assets from a game to make things simple is an easy way to make the game less scary to casuals, but it is not the only way.

kofeiiniturpa;n9325771 said:
That seems to me to be mostly storygoers and sightseers.
kofeiiniturpa;n9325771 said:
Indeed. That's why I will eject immediately if this thing starts to turn sour. I've wasted enough time and money taking the bait in the past as a member of a starving segment of the market.


No hardcore in there you imply? Perhaps with CP2077 it will be different since they'll NEED to please CP2020 players, thus hardcores like you. Or at least they won't pass the opportunity to please the 5 million people who bought Cyberpunk 2020.
 
Last edited:
The feeling I get from CDPR is that they will make the game they feel they want to make... with some aspect of casual-friendlyness, but not to such a degree that it would go against their vision for the game.

I mean if they had really truly gone very casual friendly with any of the Witcher games, then I have a feeling that they might have sold a lot more copies then they have... but the tone of the games would probably have been very different, and probably more leaning towards something like the Elder Scrolls series (especially from Oblivion and forward).

So, as such... CDPR do not seem to feel that they neccessarily need to pull in absolutly everyone from the casual gaming crowd (they will probably try, but probably not to such a degree that the vision they have for the game is compromised)... and as such seem to have no problems in creating games which might not apeal to everyone in the casual gaming crowd... it is after all what they have done for their 3 Witcher games I feel.
 
I don't expect CDPR to ignore casual gamers, but lets be real, that's never been their target audience.
Most major publishers make games that (hopefully) sell well, CDPR makes good games and let the sales take care of themselves.
Seems to work.

Back in the "old days" we kept notebooks and graph paper beside PCs, and given we did exactly the same thing during out PnP games no one thought much about it. Then they started adding quest journals and in-game maps ... WOW! Talk about easy!
Next people complained the maps weren't sufficient because they still had to open, and reopen, the quest journal to re-read the directions to get where they were going, and sometimes got lost. So quest markers started showing up.
Then people complained because their maps were cluttered with markers and it was sometimes difficult to find the one you wanted. So now we add quest filtering and arrows.
But of course then people complained they had to read the journal to find the quest they wished and highlight it, and they could still get lost because getting from point A to B is rarely a straight line. So now we add route markers.
But of course there are always those people that skip cut scenes thus have no idea what they're suppose to do once they get to the quest location ... so flashing highlights on each object you have to interact with and/or step-by-step directions on what to do when.

As you see, each step above made things easier, and more accessible to the casual gamer. To the point these days if they aren't included people that want to play a game, but not be bothered with paying too much attention to anything but fighting throw tantrums.

Personally I'd be happy with an in-games map and journal but I know there's no way we'll see that. The question is how many of those casual gamer features can you not implement before you back yourself into a corner where only the "hard-core" (note: hard-core is a relative term in this instance as illustrated above) gamers will even buy your game?
 
Last edited:
Lisbeth_Salander;n9325861 said:
No hardcore in there you imply? Perhaps with CP2077 it will be different since they'll NEED to please CP2020 players, thus hardcores like you.

I don't consider myself "hardcore". The stuff Iask for is not complicated or hard, and I bet most of the "casual" players are more HC gamers than me (what ever that even means... playing more?). I just have more defined priorities. And all I really ask for anyway is familiarity to the PnP in the feel of the charactersystems-gameplay interaction in CP2077 (and there's plenty of ways to achieve that) - and I'm sure it can be sold too without toning it down too much.
 
Suhiira;n9326691 said:
Personally I'd be happy with an in-games map and journal but I know there's no way we'll see that. The question is how many of those casual gamer features can you not implement before you back yourself into a corner where only the "hard-core" (note: hard-core is a relative term in this instance as illustrated above) gamers will even buy your game?
The real question is will we be able to complete the game on our own without markers and Batman-vision turned off but leave all that stuff to casual players?

BTW, we weren't in Witcher 3 since detective vision was mandatory to trigger quest stages and the information from NPC and journals weren't sufficient enough.

It's just that easy to realize.
 
Suhiira;n9326691 said:
I don't expect CDPR to ignore casual gamers, but lets be real, that's never been their target audience. Most major publishers make games that (hopefully) sell well, CDPR makes good games and let the sales take care of themselves. Seems to work. Back in the "old days" we kept notebooks and graph paper beside PCs, and given we did exactly the same thing during out PnP games no one thought much about it. Then they started adding quest journals and in-game maps ... WOW! Talk about easy! Next people complained the maps weren't sufficient because they still had to open, and reopen, the quest journal to re-read the directions to get where they were going, and sometimes got lost. So quest markers started showing up. Then people complained because their maps were cluttered with markers and it was sometimes difficult to find the one you wanted. So now we add quest filtering and arrows. But of course then people complained they had to read the journal to find the quest they wished and highlight it, and they could still get lost because getting from point A to B is rarely a straight line. So now we add route markers. But of course there are always those people that skip cut scenes thus have no idea what they're suppose to do once they get to the quest location ... so flashing highlights on each object you have to interact with and/or step-by-step directions on what to do when. As you see, each step above made things easier, and more accessible to the casual gamer. To the point these days if they aren't included people that want to play a game, but not be bothered with paying too much attention to anything but fighting throw tantrums. Personally I'd be happy with an in-games map and journal but I know there's no way we'll see that. The question is how many of those casual gamer features can you not implement before you back yourself into a corner where only the "hard-core" (note: hard-core is a relative term in this instance as illustrated above) gamers will even buy your game?
metalmaniac21;n9328161 said:
The real question is will we be able to complete the game on our own without markers and Batman-vision turned off but leave all that stuff to casual players? BTW, we weren't in Witcher 3 since detective vision was mandatory to trigger quest stages and the information from NPC and journals weren't sufficient enough. It's just that easy to realize.

The answer to it all may be a simple idea.

Given that casuals don't like complicated things, perhaps CDPR could make a game with all these "casual features" such as quest markers and flashing highlights to be implemented in a standardized version of the game, in other words, when pressing the start button and creating a new game such casual features would simply be there for players to play with them, but when accessing the game's configuration and options menu such features could be switched on and switched off AND in this same "menu" it would be possible for players to implement/switch on new "hardcore" features that were previously switched off in the standardized version of the game. Following this logic, the game would give the option for hardcore gamers to "personalize" such features to their liking, while casuals wouldn't even know that these options exist. Both demographics would be pleased.

The question "How can a company be flexible with its demographic targets?" is perhaps its own answer: by making its products flexible to the customers.







Calistarius;n9326151 said:
The feeling I get from CDPR is that they will make the game they feel they want to make... with some aspect of casual-friendlyness, but not to such a degree that it would go against their vision for the game. I mean if they had really truly gone very casual friendly with any of the Witcher games, then I have a feeling that they might have sold a lot more copies then they have... but the tone of the games would probably have been very different, and probably more leaning towards something like the Elder Scrolls series (especially from Oblivion and forward). So, as such... CDPR do not seem to feel that they neccessarily need to pull in absolutly everyone from the casual gaming crowd (they will probably try, but probably not to such a degree that the vision they have for the game is compromised)... and as such seem to have no problems in creating games which might not apeal to everyone in the casual gaming crowd... it is after all what they have done for their 3 Witcher games I feel.

Perhaps there are fellings involved, and based on interviews it seems that CDPR's employers have a huge artistic freedom. But usually, CEO's give that freedom a goal, to have an economical objective is necessary for the company. Based on past games, what you said about CDPR not selling out to the "casuals" is true, but now that they have their own place in the gaming industry one might wonder...given the opportunity to please a higher amount of players, shouldn't a company at least try to find such middle ground while still pleasing their current demographic?

kofeiiniturpa;n9327231 said:
I don't consider myself "hardcore".

You have an account from 2008, don't fool yourself son, you're not one of them.
 
Last edited:
Suhiira;n9326691 said:
I don't expect CDPR to ignore casual gamers, but lets be real, that's never been their target audience. Most major publishers make games that (hopefully) sell well, CDPR makes good games and let the sales take care of themselves. Seems to work.
Back in the "old days" we kept notebooks and graph paper beside PCs, and given we did exactly the same thing during out PnP games no one thought much about it. Then they started adding quest journals and in-game maps ... WOW! Talk about easy! Next people complained the maps weren't sufficient because they still had to open, and reopen, the quest journal to re-read the directions to get where they were going, and sometimes got lost. So quest markers started showing up. Then people complained because their maps were cluttered with markers and it was sometimes difficult to find the one you wanted. So now we add quest filtering and arrows. But of course then people complained they had to read the journal to find the quest they wished and highlight it, and they could still get lost because getting from point A to B is rarely a straight line. So now we add route markers. But of course there are always those people that skip cut scenes thus have no idea what they're suppose to do once they get to the quest location ... so flashing highlights on each object you have to interact with and/or step-by-step directions on what to do when.
As you see, each step above made things easier, and more accessible to the casual gamer. To the point these days if they aren't included people that want to play a game, but not be bothered with paying too much attention to anything but fighting throw tantrums.
Personally I'd be happy with an in-games map and journal but I know there's no way we'll see that. The question is how many of those casual gamer features can you not implement before you back yourself into a corner where only the "hard-core" (note: hard-core is a relative term in this instance as illustrated above) gamers will even buy your game?
Playing TW3 with only the health bars, horse panic bar and breath bar was so much better than with all the other bells and whistles. If they keep it so all the other stuff can be left off, and make it so that directions in the journal/cut-scene make it so you can find where your supposed to go with some thought, I would love it. Addresses in a modern city would certainly help. I was fine for the most part with the way this was handled in TW3. Just make it so you can play it either way (which CDPR has already shown they can do for the most part).

*I will admit I would turn on the mini-map if I wanted to do a horse race so you knew where the track was.
 
Lisbeth_Salander;n9328571 said:
Given that casuals don't like complicated things, perhaps CDPR could make a game with all these "casual features" such as quest markers and flashing highlights to be implemented in a standardized version of the game, in other words, when pressing the start button and creating a new game such casual features would simply be there for players to play with them, but when accessing the game's configuration and options menu such features could be switched on and switched off AND in this same "menu" it would be possible for players to implement/switch on new "hardcore" features that were previously switched off in the standardized version of the game. Following this logic, the game would give the option for hardcore gamers to "personalize" such features to their liking, while casuals wouldn't even know that these options exist. Both demographics would be pleased..
Ideally, but as someone else mentioned elsewhere it's not as simple as just turning map markers off, a game has to be designed to be played without them, you need directions and landmarks in the mission descriptions (tho in the case of CP2077 inside the city a simple street address will work). Sure you can then turn off the map markers, but without such directions they're essential because there's no other way to find things.
 
Suhiira;n9330241 said:
Ideally, but as someone else mentioned elsewhere it's not as simple as just turning map markers off, a game has to be designed to be played without them, you need directions and landmarks in the mission descriptions (tho in the case of CP2077 inside the city a simple street address will work). Sure you can then turn off the map markers, but without such directions they're essential because there's no other way to find things.

It's not about if they're possible (because they are), but rather about how long it's gonna take to create these optional features.

The big chalenge in the whole picture is time,
making such design choices should have been already planned during pre production in order to find practical solutions and alternatives during the developing process, making it possible to create secondary options that don't affect the game when switched on or off, assuming this would decrease the developing time in these optional features. I'm not making things up as I go along, I work with projects.

Practical solutions that cut off developing time in half could be made now, but would it be possible to make a bunch of brainstorming meetings and figure it out creative ways to implement optional features? Probably. CDPR can try it out, under the condition that it doens't affect the whole project.

Considering the possibility that they're planning to implement "optional features" during the developing process (right now), perhaps the solution to the "time problem" is the increase in numbers of CDPR's employers. CDPR went from 200 to 450 employers. Pleasing 100% the two demographics is perhaps the same as to create 2 different games, under the condition that they focus on too many opitional features. If they focus on a few optional features, then it gets easier to implement them. In the scenario that CDPR starts making it during development, the whole "optional features" thing may be possible to make if they create a few but important optional features for players to decide what to switch on and what to switch off. In this specific situation, time may not be such a big problem, while still being a challenge.

When selecting what features to be optional, CDPR should really priorize those who scare the most casuals and hardcores. There you have your middle ground.

The big question is: is it worth it to experiment things that could please both crowds? Yes because they're dealing with both crowds, and CDPR should not let this opportunity pass.
 
Last edited:
Lisbeth_Salander;n9328571 said:
Perhaps there are fellings involved, and based on interviews it seems that CDPR's employers have a huge artistic freedom. But usually, CEO's give that freedom a goal, to have an economical objective is necessary for the company. Based on past games, what you said about CDPR not selling out to the "casuals" is true, but now that they have their own place in the gaming industry one might wonder...given the opportunity to please a higher amount of players, shouldn't a company at least try to find such middle ground while still pleasing their current demographic?
First off, I did not use those words... "selling out"... I have never liked the usage of "selling out" either... and I mean this in the sence of that I do not think someone sells out if they do things that most people conside to be "selling out". I don't blame anyone for wanting their stuff to reach a larger audience, and nore do I blame anyone for wanting to earn enough money (or more money) to keep doing what they are doing and all that... even if that happends to mean that maybe I end up not liking what was made due to it. So, like I said, I don't like using those words of "selling out" due to that. Also, don't take this entire paragraph as me jumping on you or something, I just wanted to explain why I do not like the usage of the words "selling out", and that I don't like either that it was suggested that I was using such a statement about anyone/thing. Think it was due to the music industry a long time ago that I started disliking when people used the statement that someone had sold out due to changing their sound or something, or that someone sold out because they suddenly became popular or something... it always annoyed me, and still do, when I see fans of a band start throwing arround statements like that... so I guess that then eventually bleed over to videogames as well... XD

Anyway... XD

As for the rest. I have no problem what so ever with CDPR potentually trying to cater to a larger audience, even if it is a more casual market. Some of the games I play and like are very casual games after all. What I was trying to say with my previous post was just that CDPR feels like the type of company that don't seem to be all that afraid of the idea of making a game which might not be all that casual friendly... they seem like the type of company that makes the kinds of games they feel like making, no matter if that happends to be super hardcore or as casual as it gets. It feels almost like CDPR goes by a development philosophy of "If you build it, they will come" kind of a thing... where they build the game they feel like making, and then CDPR is ok who almost what ever number of people who end up buying and playing it (within reason of course, they still have to earn enough money to keep going afte all). CDPR does not come of as a company that would somehow artificially try and inflate their games-muscles by using some kind of a videogame-steroid type of a thing, they more seem like the type of company that just puts in the actual work, dedication, and the right "diet" as well, to try and produce some natural and genuine game-muscles (no matter if they are the casual kinds of muscles, or the hardcore bodybuilder types of muscles)... if that analogy makes any sence at all... XD
 
Top Bottom