Cyberpunk 2077's "RPG" systems - how should they work?

+
BeastModeIron;n9991961 said:
On the topic of augmentations vs natural progression. I think augs could be used to get the quick fix stats to allow for quick character builds as well as add to them. Typically, the skills should evolve and grow over time as the player uses them, while augmentations allow for instant access but aren't as strong as natural player progressing in the long run. I like this idea a lot, it would give players more freedom to find what they like on a gameplay level, story and lore aside.

There are gangs/cults/groups in Cyberpunk 2020 that follow that style of life, no cyber-wear at all. And there is even one group called The Inquisitors.

Also usually in 2020 cyberwear isn't a quick fix for stats, that field belongs to chips. Cyberwear in 2020 is usually a long term and permanent fix to a stat. Chips are the short term fix because it's stated in the core rule book they don't replace real skills. The example in the book was with gun users, a Pro can find different ways to shoot you while a chip just lets you know how to shoot.


BeastModeIron;n9992261 said:
Yeah, its hard to pinpoint what path stealth should follow. Skills or gear?

There's both in Cyberpunk, first up on the market for stealth there are two different full cyborg conversion kits in the Chrome books that basically turn you into the cyborg ninja, Grey Fox from Metal Gear Solid 1. If that's to much there is normal stealth gear like the Militech M96 "Ghostsuit" chameleon clothing or a combat poncho designed to bleed off your body heat to resemble animals.


0248991;n9991541 said:
lower overall income compared to Witcher 3 - Geralt was way too rich

That would work for certain classes except for a few, especially a Corp characters as it's a class that is all about the money.



As for the topic of the thread, I follow that CDPR should follow the PnP as close as they can and change those pieces that can't be digitized.
 
Snowflakez;n10009261 said:
I'm assuming you're referring to Animalfather?

None specifc, I've seen and argued with a number of people who seem to almost despise RPG's (unless RPG is just the cool combination of letters used of the ad campaign, and which also means you can talk to people in the game and have an inventory), but it is interesting that you brought him up. ;)

Snowflakez;n10009261 said:
Furthermore, and I'm sort of playing devil's advocate here, it doesn't need to be a "hardcore" RPG to begin with ... I'd argue that making it one wouldn't even necessarily make it a better game

What would you have it be then? What would it "need" to be, or does it need to be anything specifc?

I don't know about better and worse here, I don't think that's the point. I don't even know what a HC RPG in this context means (we've had an exhchange where I said I'm not expecting a "classic style RPG" and those are about as HC as it gets and this game won't be that; so what is HC here?). This - hypothetical - guy might say "Worms is good, making CP2077 like Worms would make it better", the other guy might think being like an urban Serious Sam would make it better. Some other guy might think being a mashup of all genres that can possibly be fit together would make it better, some fifth guy back in the corner might say he wants to play football in it and that'd make it better. It doesn't go anywhere with that.

I want the game to be a good RPG, that's why I came here. I don't think asking for that should be unreasonable nor that there is some sort of superiority complex afoot here for "an objectively better game". Cyberpunk 2077 has been advertised as an RPG and it's been implied to have "advanced RPG systems based on 2020" and they even have the 2020 head honcho on board. Expecting it to actually try and be an RPG to the best of CDPR's ability to create one (and in being respectful of the source material) should not be out of place to ask for and expect. And if it turns out to not be that to an acceptable degree, I'll go seek my gameplay fortunes somewhere else (I hear Fallout and VtMB creators at Obsidian are onto something again, maybe they can do what couldn't be managed here if that's how it turns out). Making it as much an RPG as possible by intention does make it objectively better as an RPG than if it was made something else. If this mystic "casual" doesn't like it, he has the rest of the games industry catering to him and he can go there play other games he can have fun with.
 
Last edited:
0248991;n9991541 said:
Guessing, about progression - no level, open talent trees to be more flexible, lower overall income compared to Witcher 3 - Geralt was way too rich :(,

BjornTheBandit;n9994241 said:
Speaking of cash, I don't understand how everyone thought Geralt made too much money. I've completed both expansions and main questline, and I had barely enough to get grandmaster crafted bear school armor, let alone the weapons to go with it. I think it was a pretty well balanced economy, though I played on the hardest difficulty and ALOT of money was spent on alcohol for potions and food for when I didn't want to drink them.

This is always difficult to balance in an open world game where the available income is theoretically infinite, and the actual amount earned is limited only by the player's patience (i.e. the amount of time spent on farming and selling items that respawn any number of times). Some will focus only on completing the quests, while others will loot and turn into money everything that is not nailed down. Although it is also a matter of learning any tricks (exploits?) that make it easier or faster to make more money. It is not easy for developers to avoid those either, even if they are patched after release, like with the infamous "bovine defense force" in Witcher 3.
 
kofeiiniturpa;n10009971 said:
None specifc, I've seen and argued with a number of people who seem to almost despise RPG's (unless RPG is just the cool combination of letters used of the ad campaign, and which also means you can talk to people in the game and have an inventory), but it is interesting that you brought him up. ;)
Haha, all in good fun! He's a staple around these forums. And I totally agree with you here.

kofeiiniturpa;n10009971 said:
What would you have it be then? What would it "need" to be, or does it need to be anything specifc?

I want the game to be a good RPG, that's why I came here. I don't think asking for that should be unreasonable nor that there is some sort of superiority complex afoot here for "an objectively better game".

Right, I wasn't referring to you when I said elitist - just want to clear that up before I go any further. Nor was I referring to anybody specific here. What I'm referring to is people who argue that other peoples wants/desires are objectively worse, as in, if the game doesn't cater to your specific desires but it caters to someone elses, they have crap taste in games. That sort of thing. People are free to feel that way, it's just not really something I agree with. This attitude is not common on these forums, I usually see it on the subreddit (I spend a lot of time there too).

I'm not implying a GTA V fan should come in here and demand a bunch of super action/shooter-focused mechanics, and the rest of us just go along with it - clearly, he's in the wrong place if that's the sort of game he wants - but rather that people who do understand and want RPGs are allowed to have (And should be encouraged to have) ideas that don't strictly line up with the ideas of some of the more avid RPG fans out there. For instance, Suhiira might want a smaller, more linear RPG experience with more classic RPG elements. If I don't want that, my vision of the game is no worse, just different (not that she's ever behaved in that way, just an example given some of her ideas).

I've actually echoed your sentiment here a few times...

kofeiiniturpa;n10009971 said:
Cyberpunk 2077 has been advertised as an RPG and it's been implied to have "advanced RPG systems based on 2020" and they even have the 2020 head honcho on board.

...I've noted in the past that if Mike Freakin' Pondsmith -- the guy who refused many previous offers from developers/publishers who wanted to make a game based on his world -- signed off on it, CDPR must know what they're doing to some degree. I believe firmly that they will try their damndest to convert as many PnP elements as possible without detracting from the experience.

As for what type of game I want it to be, I also want a good RPG ultimately, but it's hard to quantify exactly what a good RPG means to me.

Here's a (somewhat compact) list of the things I'd like to see. I can take or leave some of this depending on how it's ultimately implemented, but some of them are dealbreakers - fortunately, those dealbreakers are mostly things CDPR has already proven capable of pulling off.
  • Character creation, including classes and skill/attribute points to divide up early on.
  • Lots of character customization - aesthetics, gameplay (Weapon mods and the like) and skill-related (meaning perks/abilities that unlock as you advance certain skills).
  • A semi-branching story (a la the Witcher 3) where choices have varying degrees of impact. Multiple endings a plus.
  • Fun and engaging RPG systems. To me that means a mixture of skill-based and player-based gameplay, not strictly one or the other. Skill can influence how well you can shoot, for example (Reload times, weapon sway, etc.) but not whether or not you actually outright hit. In other words, no dice-rolling regarding hits and misses - not for the player, anyway.
  • Emphasis on role-playing. This means encounters and dialogue that offer fun and engaging challenges that can cater to a player's specific playstyle or class/role. To me, this also means fun side activities to immerse us in the world, as TW3 and even Skyrim had.
  • I'd prefer to have a partitioned open world, and I don't personally care for the idea of the hub system we've discussed in the past (we'll just have to respectfully agree to disagree, since I'm aware of your arguments and you mine).
 
Last edited:
Snowflakez;n10010171 said:
..I've noted in the past that if Mike Freakin' Pondsmith -- the guy who refused many previous offers from developers/publishers who wanted to make a game based on his world -- signed off on it, CDPR must know what they're doing to some degree. I believe firmly that they will try their damndest to convert as many PnP elements as possible without detracting from the experience.

Mike's noted in a couple interviews that the Devs at CDPR are long time Cyberpunk fans and when they first started talking they were talking about stuff he had long forgotten. So if that still holds true, there are long time fans of the PnP Game at the helm of the video game. But saying that doesn't mean it'll be the 2nd coming of Christ in RPGs but it might come close as a fan may know every single detail about the IP, they're missing the Original Creator's vision when they first started making said Ip.
 

Guest 4149880

Guest
walkingdarkly;n10009441 said:
There's both in Cyberpunk, first up on the market for stealth there are two different full cyborg conversion kits in the Chrome books that basically turn you into the cyborg ninja, Grey Fox from Metal Gear Solid 1. If that's to much there is normal stealth gear like the Militech M96 "Ghostsuit" chameleon clothing or a combat poncho designed to bleed off your body heat to resemble animals.

Yes, like some of the tech I described in the thread about how it can be utilized for stealth with camo/invisibility suits. I like this idea, hope they make stealth tech a prominent feature in gameplay in 2077. Regardless of limitations, I want to see the extents of the full cyborg conversions and how they will play into the game.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
kofeiiniturpa;n10009971 said:
I want the game to be a good RPG, that's why I came here. I don't think asking for that should be unreasonable nor that there is some sort of superiority complex afoot here for "an objectively better game". Cyberpunk 2077 has been advertised as an RPG and it's been implied to have "advanced RPG systems based on 2020" and they even have the 2020 head honcho on board. Expecting it to actually try and be an RPG to the best of CDPR's ability to create one (and in being respectful of the source material) should not be out of place to ask for and expect.
My thinking exactly.

We know (well, 99.99%) it'll have FPS combat, I just want it to have RPG combat as an option.
Note the word "option", unlike many of the FPS crowd I don't think it must have one, and only one, style of combat.

Snowflakez;n10010171 said:
For instance, Suhiira might want a smaller, more linear RPG experience with more classic RPG elements. If I don't want that, my vision of the game is no worse, just different (not that she's ever behaved in that way, just an example given some of her ideas).
Actually I'd love to see a wide open world with multiple options of how to achieve mission/quest goals. I just realize the amount of time/effort needed to accomplish that is unreasonable. So it's a question of is more quantity "better" or is more quality "better"? Obviously many people feel strongly about both options ... I just happen to be on the "quality" side.
And this applies to my constant comments whenever anyone states, or strongly implies, CP2077 must have FPS, and only FPS, combat.
 
Last edited:
Suhiira;n10020071 said:
We know (well, 99.99%) it'll have FPS combat, I just want it to have RPG combat as an option. Note the word "option", unlike many of the FPS crowd I don't think it must have one, and only one, style of combat.

Yeah, a safe 1st/3rd person shooter combat is pretty much a given, all other games of this ilk have it and so will this one. No doubt. I would hope - however vainly - though, that there could be a sort of combat system that can inherently handle 'mode' changes (that it does not require implementing and balancing several completely separate systems on top of each other), and that the game itself isn't built as a 'combat game' so that it can be reasoned why the combat sequences in it do not play like your typical - every - shooter and regardless of perspective(s).
 

Guest 4149880

Guest
Suhiira;n10020071 said:
My thinking exactly.

We know (well, 99.99%) it'll have FPS combat, I just want it to have RPG combat as an option.
Note the word "option", unlike many of the FPS crowd I don't think it must have one, and only one, style of combat.


Actually I'd love to see a wide open world with multiple options of how to achieve mission/quest goals. I just realize the amount of time/effort needed to accomplish that is unreasonable. So it's a question of is more quantity "better" or is more quality "better"? Obviously many people feel strongly about both options ... I just happen to be on the "quality" side.
And this applies to my constant comments whenever anyone states, or strongly implies, CP2077 must have FPS, and only FPS, combat.

If the game is going to focus on traditional shooter mechanics then we could probably assume it will have a built in cover system if the game has such a lethal damage combat system. I just hope it doesn't turn into a typical Uncharted/Gears style game on max difficulty, feeling where the controls are clunky and its takes a couple bullets to die and reload again. I'd personally hate the game at that point. Lets hope the combat is deeper than that.

 
BeastModeIron;n10023951 said:
I just hope it doesn't turn into a typical Uncharted/Gears style game on max difficulty, feeling where the controls are clunky and its takes a couple bullets to die and reload again. I'd personally hate the game at that point. Lets hope the combat is deeper than that.
I doubt (hope?) the controls will be clunky, but in CP2020 PnP death (or at least being incapacitation) in a couple solid hits is pretty much the norm.
The whole point is to avoid combat, or do it in such a way the opposition has no chance to respond. If you go into CP2077 (assuming it follows it CP2020 roots) with the idea of shooting your way thru the game you're going to be in for a shock ... and expect to reload a LOT.
 

Guest 4149880

Guest
Suhiira;n10024521 said:
I doubt (hope?) the controls will be clunky, but in CP2020 PnP death (or at least being incapacitation) in a couple solid hits is pretty much the norm.
The whole point is to avoid combat, or do it in such a way the opposition has no chance to respond. If you go into CP2077 (assuming it follows it CP2020 roots) with the idea of shooting your way thru the game you're going to be in for a shock ... and expect to reload a LOT.

I don't want a repetitive shooter game. I want the games combat to have weight and meaning and have limited chance of making it out alive.

Also, I worry a little bit about gameplay responsiveness and combat in 2077, coming from CDPR because of Witcher 3 combat is quite clunky in my opinion. But I'm sure it will be improved.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Suhiira;n10024521 said:
I doubt (hope?) the controls will be clunky, but in CP2020 PnP death (or at least being incapacitation) in a couple solid hits is pretty much the norm.
The whole point is to avoid combat, or do it in such a way the opposition has no chance to respond. If you go into CP2077 (assuming it follows it CP2020 roots) with the idea of shooting your way thru the game you're going to be in for a shock ... and expect to reload a LOT.

What does "RPG combat as an option" mean to you? Because I don't know if it's going to have both third-person/shooter combat on top of dice-rolling RPG combat. It's probably going to integrate both into one combat system, not have two wildly different options. It might, but it would surprise me. Making an entirely different combat system would take a lot of extra time. It's the same deal with adding that "RTS" mode somebody else suggested, the problems are similar. It requires different design approaches and the game needs to be built from the start with the intent to provide two separate combat modes.

But, it all depends on what you mean, so I'll wait for your response before going any further.

Also, I'm not saying don't argue for its inclusion or don't discuss it - in a perfect world, I'd want it too - but maybe don't expect it going into 2077. Gameplay could prove me wrong, but I think you'll be disappointed if you do. I think the game will have a blended combat system, that marries action and RPG more effectively than the Witcher 3 did, given the game's PnP roots and Mike Pondsmith's involvement as a co designer.

Suhiira;n10024521 said:
The whole point is to avoid combat , or do it in such a way the opposition has no chance to respond. If you go into CP2077 (assuming it follows it CP2020 roots) with the idea of shooting your way thru the game you're going to be in for a shock ... and expect to reload a LOT.

On a slightly separate note, I wanted to address this. In theory, you are correct. If we are playing strictly by the PnP rules, or at least drawing very, very heavily from them (Which we have no reason to think won't be the case, necessarily) then you would be absolutely right. Ambushes, and just generally setting the odds in your favor, are key elements of the PnP from what I understand. The rulebook makes several mentions of this - finding an enemy's sleeping area and place a mine under his mattress, or waiting in a dark alley for 2 guys so you can easily take one out and even the odds, etc...

But how would this ultra-lethal combat translate to a video game?

I believe we will have elements of it, but again, I think if you go into 2077 expecting it to play by the exact same (or very similar) combat rules as the PnP, you will be disappointed. This is just my opinion, of course, but I don't think you're going to have a lot of happy players if the second they pop out of cover to shoot they get popped in the head and killed instantly, forced to reload or spawn at a nearby hospital. This may sound like a fantastic, realistic, gritty experience to you, but I don't believe it's realistic to expect most players to be on board with it.

This is where arguments like "it doesn't matter if they like it or not" sometimes come into play, and I can't really address those. All I can say is CDPR will need to appeal to a wide audience with 2077 - period. Witcher 3 did, and it was a huge success. CDPR gains nothing by tightening their focus to a very passionate, very hardcore PnP fanbase. This is why you have hardcore RPGs with small, passionate fanbases (Like Serpent in the Staglands) that love the games to death, but they don't pick up massive success and widespread critical acclaim. They just don't. Part of this is due to smaller marketing budgets, of course, but part of it is that some of those elements just don't jive with the mainstream audience.

Even in Dark Souls death doesn't come that quickly. It's always because you didn't dodge at the right moment, or you didn't parry at the right moment - you can see and predict enemy attack patterns and prepare for them.

The random, almost chaotic, nature of 2020 just doesn't seem like a perfect fit for a third person or first person shooter. Would it be cool on paper? Sure, but in practice, I don't think so. Now, I could be wrong. Maybe CDPR will be a trendsetter, maybe the mainstream audience will love the hardcore PnP style combat so much that other companies try to copy it (As has happened with Dark Souls).

All of that said... CP2077 will almost certainly draw heavy inspiration from the PnP, and be much more of an "RPG" than TW3 was - CDPR has said as much themselves. So I'm not saying you need to be happy with a boring, repetetive first person shooter action game. That's (probably) not what 2077 will be. Just saying that you probably won't get quite what you're hoping for in every way.

Note: Please don't take this as me arguing against the PnP'S combat system, or as me being a "filthy casual" or something to that effect. I'm all for hard combat, it's why I play Witcher 3 on Death March since day 1, getting literally 1-shot by bandits in grandmaster Wolven armor.
 
Last edited:

Guest 4149880

Guest
Snowflakez;n10026481 said:
It's the same deal with adding that "RTS" mode somebody else suggested, the problems are similar. It requires different design approaches and the game needs to be built from the start with the intent to provide two separate combat modes.

No game dev knowledge here but my idea on what was the RTS or CRPG mode is that, assuming the game will have AI companions and player commands, it would be a matter of changing camera angles to an isometric view, giving the player a better point of view over the battle and full control over a 4 player crew with position and attack commands. Purely gameplay mechanics. It could be more, its just concept.

That's the general idea from me. Its hardly a game changer. Easier said then done but who knows what they will consider for "Tactical Mode". To me that implies a more hardened approach to combat more on the lines of a Military squad, rather then a rebellious crew of protesters with guns. It implies its a more hardcore mode then the more traditional approach they'll probably use for the main game, but more then a difficulty setting. All assumptions. I'm looking forward to finding out.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Guest 4149880

Guest
Snowflakez;n10026481 said:
Just saying that you probably won't get quite what you're hoping for in every way.

I've seen this said the most around this forum, as well as what some thinks it requires to actually develop the game itself. I really don't think it matters saying it as almost everyone here will be hoping for something, that might not be end up in the game or be what they expected, Unless some aren't expecting much to began with, I suppose they're safe from utter disappointment. I think weren't all guilty of over hyping the game for ourselves. And its not going to stop, probably only get worse.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
BeastModeIron;n10027831 said:
I think we're all guilty of over hyping the game for ourselves. And its not going to stop, probably only get worse.

Yep. I would agree. Although I got pretty hyped over W3 and it nearly lived up to expectations.

 

Guest 4149880

Guest
Sardukhar;n10028001 said:
Yep. I would agree. Although I got pretty hyped over W3 and it nearly lived up to expectations.

Yes, and I went into Witcher 3 quite blind as I wasn't keeping up with developments prior to release. Can CDPR do it again?.
 
BeastModeIron;n10028121 said:
Yes, and I went into Witcher 3 quite blind as I wasn't keeping up with developments prior to release. Can CDPR do it again?.

If only that was the challenge. People, including themselves, expect them to do it -better-. Fix the flaws of Witcher 3 and incorporate full RPG systems into their next game.

Also let's remember the PnP rules are designed to evoke a feel, they aren't an end-state. If you can do better with different rules, great!

Cyberpunk 2020 is about Roles and Style and nasty combat and luck being only a part of your skill checks and drugs being cool and dangerous and cyberware being badass and plentiful and your humanity in danger and people being just people and not Level 50 Gods.

If you can get the tech and the vulnerability and style and the danger...job done, ruleset.
 

Guest 4149880

Guest
Sardukhar;n10028191 said:
If only that was the challenge. People, including themselves, expect them to do it -better-. Fix the flaws of Witcher 3 and incorporate full RPG systems into their next game.

Also let's remember the PnP rules are designed to evoke a feel, they aren't an end-state. If you can do better with different rules, great!

Cyberpunk 2020 is about Roles and Style and nasty combat and luck being only a part of your skill checks and drugs being cool and dangerous and cyberware being badass and plentiful and your humanity in danger and people being just people and not Level 50 Gods.

If you can get the tech and the vulnerability and style and the danger...job done, ruleset.

While I throw ideas on into cyberspace. I don't really expect CPDR to make the perfect game of all games, I just want to experience their vision, something I haven't seen before. To make something new and unique, unrelated to their pervious work. Quality work, an awesome game. If its better, that's great.
 
Sardukhar;n10028001 said:
Yep. I would agree. Although I got pretty hyped over W3 and it nearly lived up to expectations.

Agreed! I think CDPR is one of the companies that actually can make games that live up to the hype, for the most part. I had an absolute blast with TW3, and I still think it's one of the greatest games ever made.

All I'm doing is cautioning people to keep some of the more in-depth expectations in check, for their own sake. Doesn't bother me any if they're right or wrong, nor does it affect me in any way if people suggest neat stuff or hype things up for themselves. It's just useful to keep in mind some of the potential restrictions so you don't end up disappointing yourself in the end - though that's going to be unavoidable for many.

I mean, I hyped up Fallout 4 quite a bit and I didn't end up enjoying it much at all. Still got good value out of it (Played around 102 hours to date) but it wasn't what I'd hoped it would be. Too many steps back, too few steps forward.

Sardukhar;n10028001 said:
Also let's remember the PnP rules are designed to evoke a feel, they aren't an end-state. If you can do better with different rules, great!

Cyberpunk 2020 is about Roles and Style and nasty combat and luck being only a part of your skill checks and drugs being cool and dangerous and cyberware being badass and plentiful and your humanity in danger and people being just people and not Level 50 Gods.

If you can get the tech and the vulnerability and style and the danger...job done, ruleset.

Thanks for pointing this out. I totally agree. I would hope that most of the people pushing for the "true PnP" style of RPG would be satisfied with this. This allows for so much more freedom to translate things over to video game form, I think, without needlessly alienating anybody who might not jive with that specific style.
 
Last edited:
Snowflakez;n10026481 said:
What does "RPG combat as an option" mean to you? Because I don't know if it's going to have both third-person/shooter combat on top of dice-rolling RPG combat. It's probably going to integrate both into one combat system, not have two wildly different options. It might, but it would surprise me. Making an entirely different combat system would take a lot of extra time. It's the same deal with adding that "RTS" mode somebody else suggested, the problems are similar. It requires different design approaches and the game needs to be built from the start with the intent to provide two separate combat modes.
At it's heart RPG combat boils down to character stats/stills determining the results of combat actions vs FPS combat where the players ability to put a crosshair on a target and click a button does.
Obviously the two systems are totally incomparable and no hybrid system can possibly satisfy both types of game players.

Assuming CP2077 derives from it's CP2020 PnP roots you'll have a Reflexes (REF) character stat and weapons skills (Handgun etc.), both of which are quite useless and pointless in an FPS combat system because it's the players skills, not the characters, that matter. Unless you incorporate some sort of game mechanics to make them; some artificial firearms skill level requirement to use certain types of weapons, a bullet spread/accuracy penalty for having a low REF stats, or some such. I.E. force certain PnP RPG elements into an FPS game, probably at the cost of alienating many FPS fans. The common mantra is: "I was 2m away and had the cross-hair right between his eyes, how could I possibly have missed?" (Which of course totally ignores vast amounts of police data showing just how often that happens.)

And here's the key point of a dual combat system game, at the beginning of a new play of the game the player gets to select if it will play as an RPG or an FPS, and this choice can't be changed without starting a new game. In a purely single-player game it doesn't matter which system is used, in multi-player obviously you can't have RPG and FPS combat at the same time, so FPS is the default (unless ALL players in the multi-player select otherwise).

To incorporate RPG combat mechanics into an FPS game is actually MUCH more simple then you (and many people) may think. Simply design the game as a classic FPS game, and don't bother to incorporate any of the PnP mechanics most FPS fans hate into the combat system. For combat purposes Reflexes and firearms skills become dump stats (tho they may be useful in other things, say the ability to sneak and climb or maintain your weapons). Give the FPS players all the control they demand in a combat system.

To implement RPG combat just make the existing Reflexes and firearms skills relevant. All the math and die rolls are invisible in a video game anyway, just not used (or even need to be included to save CPU time/power) in the FPS. Add tab targeting and a "pause" system in the RPG combat mode (neither of which exist in FPS mode - and note I did not, and do not, suggest a turn-based combat system) and let those invisible game systems determine the outcome of combat, just like they would in the CP2020 PnP.

What could be more simple?

Snowflakez;n10026481 said:
On a slightly separate note, I wanted to address this. In theory, you are correct. If we are playing strictly by the PnP rules, or at least drawing very, very heavily from them (Which we have no reason to think won't be the case, necessarily) then you would be absolutely right. Ambushes, and just generally setting the odds in your favor, are key elements of the PnP from what I understand. The rulebook makes several mentions of this - finding an enemy's sleeping area and place a mine under his mattress, or waiting in a dark alley for 2 guys so you can easily take one out and even the odds, etc...

But how would this ultra-lethal combat translate to a video game?
Easily.
The game designers simply have to include ways other them combat to complete mission objectives. If it's going to be an RPG not a shooter these have to exist anyway.

But ... but ... that means I can't shoot my way thru the game absorbing or dodging tons of bullets, and/or healing at miraculous rates which exist in other FPS games.
(Note: And only because they must to support this style of game-play. Such systems aren't even needed in CP2077).
Yup.
Welcome to Cyberpunk!

The game isn't a shooter, don't expect it to be able to be played like one simply because you like that style of game.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom