Gameplay - depth vs complexity vs fun

[NukeTheMoon]

I have to say that it does seem to me like some kind of missunderstanding has happened here between kofeiiniturpa and Lisbeth_Salander during the past few days...

Seemed to me that one is saying that the game will be geared towards casual players, another is saying the game will be geared for hardcore players.

I'm pretty damn sure that CDPR wants both audiences, and will work to get them, since it is entirely possible to do so, and there is no reason not to do so. But presently I feel both believe it's an either/or situation.

Just means they'll both be happily surprised when the game comes out. In 2019.

EDIT: Its actually kind of hard to follow along the main point when both are making multiple replies in single posts, the main thread of thought has become a spider web.

 

[kofeiiniturpa]

EDIT: Its actually kind of hard to follow along the main point when both are making multiple replies in single posts, the main thread of thought has become a spider web.

It's partly due to me having to edit in additional responses as Lisbeth's post has changed while I've been writing my response.

But I do have clarify that I am not saying the game will be anything (of my preferences and ideals). I am hoping that while it's going to be a modern game, it takes a clear and bold stance to lean more towards the sensibilities of a traditional RPG than a modern action adventure with just some hints of being an RPG. And as such create something not too often seen in this industry in this day and age. I try to push for elements that would serve that goal.

 

[NukeTheMoon]

It's partly due to me having to edit in additional responses as Lisbeth's post has changed while I've been writing my response.

But I do have clarify that I am not saying the game will be anything. I am hoping that while it will definitely be a modern game, it takes a clear and bold stance to lean more towards the sensibilities of a traditional RPG than a modern action adventure with just some hints of being an RPG. And as such create something not too often seen in this industry in this day and age. I try to push for elements that would serve that goal.

Thank you. I now understand where you are coming from.

I do think CDPR is likely to follow your train of thought, although I suspect they intend to deliver it in a very different way than you would expect.
The days of inch thick RPG game manuals is over. And thank the Gods.

They didn't buy the liscense with the intent of turning it into another Syndicate FPS.
And they aren't going to make a game that costs a sh*t-load of money to develop that only appeals to a minority of gamers.

 

[Lisbeth_Salander]

I have to say that it does seem to me like some kind of missunderstanding has happened here between kofeiiniturpa and Lisbeth_Salander during the past few days...

Seemed to me that one is saying that the game will be geared towards casual players, another is saying the game will be geared for hardcore players.

What you mean is that one of us is giving importance to both casuals and hardcores, while the other is mainly focusing on one of them (which is not a wise thing to do).

Repeat what? How? Where have said that? You seem to misinterpret my words and then attribute stuff to me I have no idea I even implied it; and when I question that you ask me if I can read.

>you're saying that you can't understand what I said

Don't assume that Witcher is the only way to design a game. I've said plenty of times in these boards that I specifically want them to distance themselves from Witcher and other blockbusters to as far as possible and try to do something different. That of course often nets the response "different for the sake of being different" from some people and then we are at a position where nothing can be done but copy pasting because trying out something different is somehow pretentious.

>now you're completely understanding what I said

Geez, isn't that's crazy?

The multiplayer in CP2077 can take care of casuals. While the singleplayer remains intact.

Regarding Singleplayer: my whole point is to not go for the extreme casuals, but to implement features that are accessible for players who identify themselves more as being "casuals".

This way, the game will have deep content and stay true to its roots while targeting players who are mostly hardcores and those who are mostly casuals, thus a broader demographic.

"making these features more accessible" doens't mean cutting of content, it doens't mean completely appealing to casuals either, it really means to simply make said content less boring and scary to casuals, while at the same time staying true to CP2020.

A game can't be popular in long periods of times without having a big demographic targeted, which means, that marketing alone can't keep the game under its feet, but gameplay and replayability can, that's where multiplayer comes in in full force.

EDIT: Its actually kind of hard to follow along the main point when both are making multiple replies in single posts, the main thread of thought has become a spider web.

The whole web thing is nice for ideas. Chaos adds it all up. Anyway, do you guys like Huey Lewis and The News?

[video=youtube;vzN3qO-qc8U]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vzN3qO-qc8U[/video]

I bet there isn't a single american here.

 

[NukeTheMoon]

I would like concrete examples of what the difference between a Casual and Hardcore(Traditional?) RPG actually is.

Maybe what is meant by "Hardcore RPG" focuses very much of the aspect of distributing points, by percentage and leveling up. Like Fallout 2, for example.
While perhaps "Casual" in interpreted as going up level gives access to a simple perk, or something like that. Fallout 4.

Is this the conversation we are having?
Because that's the only thing I can think of that would effect the loose classification of the RPG system between one or the other.

But it's not a bridge too far that it would divide potential audiences.

Even a "hardcore" RPG system can be "casualized" for those who want it. Simply have preset character layouts and automatic leveling as options.

Even Fallout 1+2 had preset character build for people who didn't want to screw around the character builder.
I think Mass Effect had this auto-enabled on the easiest difficulty settings if I recall. I definitely remember doing that on my first ME1 play-through.

 

[kofeiiniturpa]

>you're saying that you can't understand what I said

>now you're completely understanding what I said

Geez, isn't that's crazy?

It is kinda crazy. It now sounds as if I was arguing that CDPR should do their stuff exactly like with the Witcher (you did that earlier already but at no point was that the case and I can't find where you could've interpreted that from what I've said) and that you made me see the light.

That's the last I'm talking about this. It has gone long enough.

"making these features more accessible" doens't mean cutting of content, it doens't mean completely appealing to casuals either, it really means to simply make said content less boring and scary to casuals, while at the same time staying true to CP2020.

Would you define somehow how you'd make these "hardcore" mechanics "accessible and less scary" to a "casual" without losing the depth and feel in the process? What would you suppose those HC mechanics are in the first place, from where to start casualizing without collateral damage?

EDIT-------------------

Maybe what is meant by "Hardcore RPG" focuses very much of the aspect of distributing points, by percentage and leveling up. Like Fallout 2, for example. While perhaps "Casual" in interpreted as going up level gives access to a simple perk, or something like that. Fallout 4. Is this the conversation we are having? Because that's the only thing I can think of that would effect the loose classification of the RPG system between one or the other. But it's not a bridge too far that it would divide potential audiences. Even a "hardcore" RPG system can be "casualized" for those who want it. Simply have preset character layouts and automatic leveling as options.

It's a matter of what will those things do to the gameplay, that supposedly scares people away. Low skill making you hit less even if you were some kinds of Battlefield pro, skillchecks having a chance to fail because the character has not put adequate amount of points where he should have. The whole concept of character vs player is viewed as scary, because if the character is more in charge (as it should), people have less control over him (at least initially) and that upsets certain crowd. And autoleveling or preset character aren't helping that.

 

[Suhiira]

It's a matter of what will those things do to the gameplay, that supposedly scares people away. Low skill making you hit less even if you were some kinds of Battlefield pro, skillchecks having a chance to fail because the character has not put adequate amount of points where he should have. The whole concept of character vs player is viewed as scary, because if the character is more in charge (as it should), people have less control over him (at least initially) and that upsets certain crowd. And autoleveling or preset character aren't helping that.

Basically the FPS crowd wants to be in control of their character, determine what they do and when, and have success/failure determined by their, the players, actions.
The RPG set wants the characters skills to determine success/failure. Thus have the ability to create a character with skills they, the player, lack.

 

[kofeiiniturpa]

Basically the FPS crowd wants to be in control of their character, determine what they do and when, and have success/failure determined by their, the players, actions.
The RPG set wants the characters skills to determine success/failure. Thus have the ability to create a character with skills they, the player, lack.

Precisely.

There are the middlegrounders who are fine to what ever degree with anything, but that's the gist of it.

 

[metalmaniac21]

Anyway, do you guys like Huey Lewis and The News?

*waves the hand lazily*They're okay...

Am I crazy for viewing this movie as a comedy?

 

[NukeTheMoon]

Basically the FPS crowd wants to be in control of their character, determine what they do and when, and have success/failure determined by their, the players, actions.
The RPG set wants the characters skills to determine success/failure. Thus have the ability to create a character with skills they, the player, lack.

Precisely.

There are the middlegrounders who are fine to what ever degree with anything, but that's the gist of it.

Isn't it still possible to combine these two things?

The easiest example that comes to mind is System Shock 2, where the entire area around the baddie was it's hit-box, making it nearly impossible to miss if you were aiming in it's general direction. But the damage done by you to him and him to you were largely determined by stats.

Or Deus Ex 1999, where characters had precise hit-boxes but at lower weapon skill levels the spread of weapons was extreme.

Or are these games not considered "traditional" enough? SS2 it seems to me would at least apply.

 

[Suhiira]

Isn't it still possible to combine these two things?

Only by having the option to use one system or the other in a game.
Not like you can have PLAYER control and CHRACTER control of say shooting skills at the same time, mutually exclusive.

 

[kofeiiniturpa]

Isn't it still possible to combine these two things?

The easiest example that comes to mind is System Shock 2, where the entire area around the baddie was it's hit-box, making it nearly impossible to miss if you were aiming in it's general direction. But the damage done by you to him and him to you were largely determined by stats.

Or Deus Ex 1999, where characters had precise hit-boxes but at lower weapon skill levels the spread of weapons was extreme.

In SS you're shooting monsters. (It makes some sense you sink in several bullets.)

Damage through stats only leads to bulletsponges and HP bloat, not to mention the weird undamaging weapons that you can fire in someones face several times before getting a proper response (death). See human enemies in Bethesda's Fallouts for an example. That's rather boring and not at all like hiw things worked in 2020 where combat was very lethal. It'd be more plausible in a more abstracted scenario (i.e. Isometric/Turnbased...) where a small damage could be interpreted as a knick to to the ear or scratch to the arm. But that would still stray from the 2020 ideal.

Deus Ex did it rather well, but you're hard pressed to find someone else to agree with that. Eidos already made their continuations work like normal shooters (and the games suffer for it).

 

[NukeTheMoon]

Only by having the option to use one system or the other in a game.
Not like you can have PLAYER control and CHRACTER control of say shooting skills at the same time, mutually exclusive.

I agree that they are opposites, and you can't have 100% of both systems in control at the same time.
But you can have half-n-half.

In Dues Ex 1999, both systems did partially co-exist.
First came Character, where if you did not have any weapon skills upgraded, you couldn't hit the broad side of a barn. Once you did have said weapon skill upgraded to max, you could pull off headshots from 50 feet. As long as your mouse-aim was good enough. That's Player Control.

Character Control shifting to Player Control as Character Skill increases. But when character weapon skill is middle ground your ability to hit a target is both a combination of how well the Player aims and how accurate the Character shoots.

Shooting at target
[ Character Skill = Low ] + [ Player Skiill = High] = Likely to Miss
[ Character Skill = High ] + [ Player Skill = Low] = Likely to Miss
[ Character Skill = 50% Max ] + [ Player Skill = Decent ] = Hit or Miss (say 50% chance)
[ Character Skill = High] + [Player Control = High ] = Likely to Hit

There both systems are in "play", but neither one controls thing completely.
Basically there are two limiting factors to hitting the target, instead of either just one, being Player ability or Character ability.

In SS you're shooting monsters. (It makes some sense you sink in several bullets.)

Damage through stats only leads to bulletsponges and HP bloat, not to mention the weird undamaging weapons that you can fire in someones face several times before getting a proper response (death). See human enemies in Bethesda's Fallouts for an example. That's rather boring and not at all like hiw things worked in 2020 where combat was very lethal. It'd be more plausible in a more abstracted scenario (i.e. Isometric/Turnbased...) where a small damage could be interpreted as a knick to to the ear or scratch to the arm. But that would still stray from the 2020 ideal.

Deus Ex did it rather well, but you're hard pressed to find someone else to agree with that. Eidos already made their continuations work like normal shooters (and the games suffer for it).

I take it you would say that The Division would be an good example of enemies being bullet sponges as a method of making RPG stats important in addition to player skill.

So, if one were to design CP77 to be a traditional RPG system, in a non-turnbased environment, exactly how do you think that function?

Maybe a third-person-shooter with massive weapon spread, recoil and inaccuracy at low skills levels.
The way Deus Ex did it ( as a FPS ) is the only real system that comes to mind.
And it's not actually all that complicated or difficult to implement.

But I am open to other ideas if you have something. Surely you're not advocating for RPG traditionalism without an idea of how to implement it.

 

[kofeiiniturpa]

I take it you would say that The Division would be an good example of enemies being bullet sponges as a method of making RPG stats important in addition to player skill.

I haven't played it. It looks boring.

So, if one were to design CP77 to be a traditional RPG system, in a non-turnbased environment, exactly how do you think that function? Maybe a third-person-shooter with massive weapon spread, recoil and inaccuracy at low skills levels. The way Deus Ex did it ( as a FPS ) is the only real system that comes to mind. And it's not actually all that complicated or difficult to implement.

I'd be very open to something akin to the original Deus Ex.

Surely you're not advocating for RPG traditionalism without an idea of how to implement it.

If I was making the game, I would want to explore some more unconventional designs than a normal 1st/3rd person shooter with a bit of distortion.
I've had an idea for quite some time for something of an alternative that - the way I imagine it since I don't know a game that has done it - gives huge weight to the character systems and skill build but still requires some action and activity from the player.

Imagine Morrowind combined with the timed attacks of Witcher 1 and target lock from the early 3D GTA games put it in the Cyberpunk setting with modern interface, controls and responsivity.

In practice it would be something like:
- The crosshair is NOT the chracters aim, but simply a targeting tool.
- Take it near the enemy (or object) like you would in normal shooter.
- Press and hold RMB as if bringing up iron sights in a normal shooter,
- but here the reticle sticks to the enemys chest and a coloured bar starts to grow on the side of the reticle with a % number beside it.
- While still holding RMB, move the mouse towards different bodyparts to select them as a target.
- Choose when to shoot. The Green bar indicates the best time, but it resets after a while so be precise.

What happens there is that you select a target for your character and the to-hit-chance you get is a sum of the situational modifiers and the characters skill. You can shoot immediately, but waiting increases your chances (as per in the PnP... waiting the 3.2 second round focusing on a target to gain a better shot). The base accuracy lives per character and situation so late game you might not need to wait for good chances at all aside from longer distances or smaller targets. And all the while you need to move and maneuver the character, find cover, select the right target, retry after a miss, and what ever else is related.

Think of as something of an active realtime VATS. Then offer a tactical pause that might well double as the implied tactical mode that might work something like a phasebased combat system (like the original pause-VATS from Fallout 3 and NV, but with the difference that it'd offer much more options - like movement and NPC commands in addition to shooting - and after the qued commands are executed the game returns to the paused state and prompts you to continue).

Works both first and thirds person. But the pacing of combat might need to be a bit more down to earth (which is not a bad thing).

It might sound very rough, and it is specifically "along-the-lines-of" kind of thing since I've no chance to see if it would work in practice. And I can only try to explain it in text and urge the use of imagination. And curiously enough, CDPR made a chirstmas gif some time back that had almost the exact crosshar and timebar I had spoken of (not that they took it from me, but it was kind of a fun incident to have it so well demonstrate what I had in mind):

 

[Calistarius]

So, if one were to design CP77 to be a traditional RPG system, in a non-turnbased environment, exactly how do you think that function?

I think you need to be more specific with what your asking here... because when I see this question I instantly think of games like Dragon Age: Origins, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Pillars of Eternity, Tyranny, etc... and I have a feeling that you might not be looking for answers like this.

These games use systems which are as "traditional" as your various turnbased types of games like Fallout 1 and 2. Because they all come from a bases of games wanting to be close to pen and paper rpg's. And pen and paper rpg's is what I consider that a game has to try and emulate to be a "traditional rpg system".

 

[nallepuh86]

Deus ex fight system was horrible. Felt floaty and just annoying. Weapons should hit where i point with bullet spread depending on weapon.

Strenght affecting on recoil is ok, but skill affecting accuracy? Big no.

 

[kofeiiniturpa]

See that nallepuh response there NukeTheMoon ... "Deus Ex horrible, character skill for accuracy big no..." I disagree with it fundamentally, but it's not at all uncommon stance to have. That's why I'm suggesting player only selects the target and chooses when to shoot (and of course does all the moving and other actions). It's clear to the player he's not aiming and where the results come from, and there doesn't need to be distorted player-controls in that regard to confuse that certain part of the audience. "I aimed dead center, why did I miss?"

 

[Rawls]

We've already gone round and round on this before, but I do think that the player ought to be the one aiming the shot. I would love it if skills made it easier or harder to do.

If you have no skillpoints invested in handguns, it takes you longer to draw the weapon, your target center moves around on you making it harder to aim, the recoil is more, more likely to not shoot on the first shot (stupid safety) etc. However, if you shoot a guy/gal in the head, he's dead unless he as armored skin or something (no % damage increases other than via caliber & velocity of the weapon). This reflects the characters lack of skill with the weapon, and makes the combat more challenging for a unskilled character.

However, the player ought to still be in control (which IMO is more fun). It's not as much fun to click "shoot at this guy" and then are told "you missed" or "you hit for 238 damage." The player controlling the action is more immersive as the stat control of the action makes it a more passive experience where you (the player) are removed to an extent from the outcome. There isn't the conceptual separation, you just do the action and see the result. That experience is more satisfying for me (and I think it would be for most players - at least it is for most of my friends who play this style of game).

Damage dealt and received ought to be high like the PnP. Short high stress combat scenarios when dealing with human v human combat. Now if there are some bosses, like mechs or something, then it would be high stress combat that also lasts awhile.

 

[kofeiiniturpa]

It is an old topic (and relevant)... But all this (not your post -specifically- Rawls, the general tone that's been around for years already) just gives the odd feeling that there is but one way to make a game:

Spoiler

That or... Give these guys platearmor and swords and draw a fantasy forest around them:

Anything else and it's doomed (supposedly... and it would also render good lot of discussion and speculation pointless).

I've been complaining about these thing alot and I know it. But it is just a tad frustrating to see all the potential go to waste when in the end everything - by audience request - plays like a the next FPS over there when it comes to combat. Not intriguing, not exciting, just something to get over with as fast as possible so one can get back to the story or what ever else there is to do besides shooting people.

 

[Suhiira]

I agree that they are opposites, and you can't have 100% of both systems in control at the same time.
But you can have half-n-half.

Those sorts of hybrid 50/50 systems are exactly what piss the FPS crowd off.

"I was at 2m and pointing right at his face, how could I possibly miss!"

So no, hybrid systems don't "work", they just annoy everyone.