Weekly Poll 10/1/2018 - The Gunplay!

+

How do you like your CRPG Gunplay?


  • Total voters
    198
A video game is not PNP.
It can be though. Ever head of Tabletop Simulator (which is literally what it says it is)? Or Ticket to Ride (a boardgame turned into a video game)? Even the classic cRPGs are pretty much emulators of PnP RPGs. Maybe not in the sense of amount of interaction possible, but certainly in how they incorporate all of the rules within a video game.

But I do agree with you that a video game doesn't have to be an exact reflection of PnP and its rule set.
 
Last edited:
A video game can be anything the designers want it to be.
There's absolutely no reason it "has to be", or "can't be", or "should be" anything.
That said, CP2077 is suppose to be a video game adaptation of the CP2020 PnP, and CDPR has stressed it's (supposedly) an RPG first and foremost. That leads to expectations, and reasonable ones, that it'll incorporate RPG mechanics. At the moment everything we've seen with the combat system shows us anything but.
 
Last edited:
Your talking about a different type of optical scanner, so it probably won't be much more humanity cost than a different version. It's not like it's some huge horrible limiter on your ability to progress.

Well, the demo already showed difference in humanity cost between different optical scanners, so even if we are talking about some point, as long as there is an hard limit (because we know there is as it have already been said by the dev' about cyberpsycho) every point counts.
And it might be even worst if the game is actually genuine to the P&P RPG where humanity is key to your social interractions.

More likely it means limiting the availability of other types of optical scanners (perhaps with social, netrunning, tech, or power weapon benefits).

If I sum up that with what we already knows, that would make a huge imbalance:

FPS player who would take a social scanner VS RPG player with a "I can use my stats during combats" scanner:
-Combat: FPS player does more damage (been said by the dev').
-Social: FPS player do have an edge that the RPG player don't because of the social scanner.

As long as there will be the possibility to do the same thing with or without ressources, then the without ressources one will always have an edge as those ressources will be able to be used somewhere else, that's the problem about forcing the RPG players to spend ressources on combat that FPS players don't have to.

I insist on this even more because in FPS I'm what I thinks is called a "sitting duck": I am unable to move + aim + shoot at the same time (which is about 100% of what we saw in the demo). I can only aim when I don't move at all, and even then I'm not good (I had to mod Fallout 4 VATS because it was still too fast for me and I was unable to select the part I wanted to shoot efficiently).
 
Last edited:
That's why I am waiting for their next gameplay, where they show the RPG aspects in greater detail. Because besides the ability to walk on the walls and attack from the above with the Mantis Blades there was literally nothing that impressed me in Cyberpunk 2077 so far. Pretty graphics? Not that important to me. Coventional - bland - gunplay? It has to be more than that to interest me.
 
Stats impact bullet spread, reload speed, weapon sway.

If you look at the reception of any of those games (with any name behind them... DX, AP, VtMB, Fallout 3...) that had that kind of system, they all got shunned for it and ditched it later on (with AP, even the devs themselves mocked it). And finding the sweet spot for it to work actually well for either party (action <-> RPG) is extremely hard... when does the spread (+other modifiers) go too far for the core audience, when does the lack of spread (+other modifiers) make the skills redundant through lack of impact, when does it feel just lukewarm... (I did suggest those things being handle through difficulty settings in the challenge poll, but that didn't catch much fire...)

That's not to say I disagree with having that system (on the contrary, I hope and wish for it to at least be there if all else fails), but its history is kind of telling and in my opinion would call for a different combat system entirely - to check if the ice holds, so to speak - that still handles both action and RPG aspects differently but in somewhat equal measure (one rough example of which I outlined earlier in this thread)... Since, you know... "NOT AN FPS, NOT AN FPS! NOT A SHOOTER WITH RPG ELEMENTS! BUT A FIRST PERSON RPG!" Lest this thing just falls in the same category with the rest of them... a good game with an awfully clumsy FPS combat (in the eyes of the average consumer and journos alike), whose sequel will have that good FPS combat.

Try something different for a change - at least on the side. The world is full of games with common prechewed FPS/TPS combat already, and more are flooding in from doors and windows all the time.
 
Last edited:
If you look at the reception of any of those games (with any name behind them... DX, AP, VtMB, Fallout 3...) that had that kind of system, they all got shunned for it and ditched it later on (with AP, even the devs themselves mocked it).
You are looking at the wrong games. At least in terms of execution of stats impacting the bullets' spread, reload speed and weapon sway.
 
You are looking at the wrong games. At least in terms of execution of stats impacting the bullets' spread, reload speed and weapon sway.

I'm looking at games that at least attempted to be RPG's that had character systems to control and progress the performance (well, perhaps bar Fallout 3, which was just a shitshow that didn't know what it even wanted to be) and that are most commonly used as examples here.

Come to think of it, though. I remember liking the way Stalker-SoC used spread (though it wasn't an RPG nor did it have anything to control the spread - at least not skills).

What games did you have in mind?
 
Last edited:
I'm looking at games that at least attempted to be RPG's that had character systems to control and progress the performance (well, perhaps bar Fallout 3, which was just a shitshow that didn't know what it even wanted to be) and that are most commonly used as examples here.
The point is - the way they attempted to implement stats impact on gunplay is severly outdated. Think less about how the cRPGs of old did it and picture a more modern game, then imagine you take less time to reload your gun, and your aim gets more and more stable, both when you aim (sway) and try to manage the recoil [when you fire].

The closest example I can give you, where stats actually impact gameplay in such fashion, is archery and bow skill in Kingdom Come: Deliverance. It's basically the same principle at work.
 
What games did you have in mind?
The Last of Us, which is not an RPG but does have a progression system, is the one I would like to see something like for weapon sway. Faster reload speed and recoil reduction would be fairly straight forward, as several games (Borderlands is the one jumping to mind off hand) do it as a % change for the action and/or animation to be preformed.
 
The point is - the way they attempted to implement stats impact on gunplay is severly outdated. Think less about how the cRPGs of old did it and picture a more modern game, then imagine you take less time to reload your gun, and your aim gets more and more stable, both when you aim (sway) and try to manage the recoil [when you fire].

The base principle in the design is the same, though, new or old (sway and angled rounds are basically the same thing... only, sway you can compensate for yourself). Only the presentation changes.

And all the "shooters" (or the like) that have had systems like that put in place, have drastically downplayed their effects. I use older games as examples, because in games like DX or AP, you can actually see and feel the effect.

Reload speed is nice, but I'm not really sure how much it'd actually do to reduce it for .5 seconds or 10% (or what ever) per skill point. Would you really notice it (beyond the comparing the polar ends of the skill)?

The Last of Us

Dunno. I haven't played it, but it looks pretty basic to me.
 
Last edited:
A video game can be anything the designers want it to be.
There's absolutely no reason it "has to be", or "can't be", or "should be" anything.
That said, CP2077 is suppose to be a video game adaptation of the CP2020 PnP, and CDPR has stressed it's (supposedly) and RPG first and foremost. That leads to expectations, and reasonable ones, that it'll incorporate RPG mechanics. At the moment everything we've seen with the combat system shows us anything but.

Yeah, all of this is fine. It has nothing to do with providing a system true to the source rule set to satisfy players looking for a game play experience true to the source material. I'm having trouble finding anything to indicate it would be a problem to do so. Hence the strawman statement. If CDPR is going to make a game based on a PNP and advertise it as an RPG at it's core then, by all rights, they should offer a combat system in-line with the PNP behavior.

What I'd like to avoid is this somehow ending up as multiple combat systems with the PNP translation as one option and combat akin to a competitive FPS as the other option. Doing this is going to satisfy people whom would only be satisfied with one extreme or the other. The people looking for elements of both just get screwed.

No, I'm not suggesting this was indicated anywhere either. That would be a strawman too :). I wouldn't put it past a game developer to see requests for two combat systems, each supported by fundamentally different concepts, and choose to implement the extreme of both and be done with it. I wanted to point out this option exists and firmly state, "Don't do this, pretty please.".

What games did you have in mind?

I'd be interested to get clarification as well. I cannot think of many games brave enough to steer away from the tried and true, "My character gets more hit chance, damage or critical strike chance.", model. Granted, I'm not sure if the alternative, "My reticle isn't as steady, I can't control the weapon as well, my fire rate is lower or my character drops the gun while trying to reload it.", would necessarily be an improvement. It would be a more direct representation of character improvement though.
 
I'd be interested to get clarification as well. I cannot think of many games brave enough to steer away from the tried and true, "My character gets more hit chance, damage or critical strike chance.", model. Granted, I'm not sure if the alternative, "My reticle isn't as steady, I can't control the weapon as well, my fire rate is lower or my character drops the gun while trying to reload it.", would necessarily be an improvement. It would be a more direct representation of character improvement though.
Problem is, most of the suggestions involving incorporating RPG mechanics into an FPS system only make the FPS system harder to master, for everyone, and non-FPS players are at a disadvantage to begin with. So in reality they make the problem worse rather then better.
 
I cannot think of many games brave enough to steer away from the tried and true, "My character gets more hit chance, damage or critical strike chance.", model.

Nor do I. But I don't know if that stuff needs to be gotten rid off for improvement or forward thinkingness. (And I just happen to like my hit chances.)

The thing is, though... In my opinion... Where there is character skill, it should govern things the player has no say on and the player is given the control over the rest with just as much compensation as the skill-governed action and its design can grant. So that there is no confusion over who is in charge of what, nor that it's a 50/50, 60/40 or 70/30 towards either side.

So, if a gun skill governs accuracy - which it should, no, really it SHOULD - and all that relates to that (among possibly reload speed and something like that), it should really do it to the letter, and the design should make selecting and keeping of targets on the fly as comfortable and reliable for the player as possible. How ever that happens. The player knows what's his lot and responsibility, and where the character he's built an now progresses reigns.

That's the direction I'd take in trying to figure out how to move forward (by looking not only what's going on now, but also what has gone on in the past).
 
The base principle in the design is the same, though, new or old (sway and angled rounds are basically the same thing... only, sway you can compensate for yourself). Only the presentation changes.

And all the "shooters" (or the like) that have had systems like that put in place, have drastically downplayed their effects. I use older games as examples, because in games like DX or AP, you can actually see and feel the effect.
The presentation is what important here, even if the design principle remains the same (which is why this aspect was criticized in the past: it didn't feel natural).

And don't fool yourself by thinking you can compensate for sway. Because if you can, then it simply means it isn't done right. Controlling sway is harder in real life than people think. It takes time and experience to do it properly, and it should be the same in game.

Reload speed is nice, but I'm not really sure how much it'd actually do to reduce it for .5 seconds or 10% (or what ever) per skill point. Would you really notice it (beyond the comparing the polar ends of the skill)?
It depends on how long it takes to reload a particular weapon and how [in]experienced you are at it. Of course, we know that V will have a background that indicates some knowledge of firearms (or at very least the handguns), but there are other [more powerful] weapons in the game as well, right?
 
Controlling sway is harder in real life than people think. It takes time and experience to do it properly,

Boy howdy this. Sway and jerking the trigger. If i could actually *&%@ fix those, I'd be so much a better shot. Way out of practice.

It takes most people a looooong time (1000 to 3000 rounds -carefully- fired, top shooters have told me - grandmaster class marksmen) to be any good with a weapon. And you have to keep it up or else.

Shooting be hard. I know gamers don't like that truth, but it is so. In 2020 at least, this was well represented.
 
The presentation is what important here, even if the design principle remains the same (which is why this aspect was criticized in the past: it didn't feel natural).

Yeah, ok, but then we're facing another problem. How much lack of skill can you represent with a wobbling barrell without it looking utterly ridiculous while still providing apt effects and feel of progression?

It depends on how long it takes to reload a particular weapon and how [in]experienced you are at it.

Yeah, but the point is that would you really notice the benefit and advantage you get unless you compare the polar ends of the skill range side by side (which you can't do in the game) unless you make reloading take, like... reeeeeeally long and have it mitigate a noticeable bunch with each step towards reaching the max speed?

In real life, you would notice it of course, but there's a huge difference between the personal feel of it and watching an animation at the corner of your eye while focusing on what else is happening on the screen.
 
The presentation is what important here, even if the design principle remains the same (which is why this aspect was criticized in the past: it didn't feel natural).

And don't fool yourself by thinking you can compensate for sway. Because if you can, then it simply means it isn't done right. Controlling sway is harder in real life than people think. It takes time and experience to do it properly, and it should be the same in game.


It depends on how long it takes to reload a particular weapon and how [in]experienced you are at it. Of course, we know that V will have a background that indicates some knowledge of firearms (or at very least the handguns), but there are other [more powerful] weapons in the game as well, right?
This.

I love both Kofe and Su, but I'll admit I'm getting a bit tired of defending this concept.

Yes, we would like the pause-based combat system (at least, I would). But we know that is unlikely. As such, I would like this instead, because I think it'd actually be fun without compromising the game's shooter elements to a significant-enough degree to piss people off.

KCD did it with bow aiming, as you said. Some people complained, but so-the-hell what? Most people loved it, and the game sold far more copies than you'd think. It's been lauded by critics (surprise, given its supposedly "niche" appeal) and gamers alike on a wide scale. It's DLC is a bit hit-or-miss, but it was clearly successful enough to merit further development (and most likely a sequel or two).

It's easy to get stuck in the past way of thinking, where you look at games like AP, Bloodlines, etc. and just assume that's how this system must work and feel, so it must be a terrible concept that is "worse for everyone." Not true, not true at all.

Presentation, as Harth said, is everything. It matters, a lot. Bloodlines and AP were incredibly janky because the animations were garbage, the reticles were garbage, and their systems were not explained well (IIRC). Also, Bloodlines used a completely different system than what I propose - if I remember correctly, it used an actual dice-roll to determine whether or not your bullet would hit the target, no? It wasn't just a matter of bullet spread or weapon sway. I'm proposing the latter.

CDPR has some of the best damn animators in the business, I am 100% confident they can make a system that looks and feels great to play with.

But regardless, I'm done fighting about it at this point. I think it's a good idea and I hope it gets implemented, but if the argumetns I'm dealing with here are essentially "my way or the highway, no compromise," then I see no point in continuing in circles for eternity. We need (figure of speech) to reach a firm "yes, this is a good idea," or "no, this is a bad idea," because I've heard so many mixed messages from you guys that at this point I don't know if you'd be happy with anything other than turn-based combat.
 
Last edited:
Problem is, most of the suggestions involving incorporating RPG mechanics into an FPS system only make the FPS system harder to master, for everyone, and non-FPS players are at a disadvantage to begin with. So in reality they make the problem worse rather then better.

How so? The quality action RPG systems make it inefficient to go outside the abilities of the character. Yes, if my character lacks appropriate abilities related to gun play it's still possible to engage in gun play and find success in it. It doesn't mean the player would choose to take this route. It's more likely the player would play to the strengths of the character. My character is good at shooting things so I am going to shoot things. If my character is bad at shooting things I'm going to steer away from shooting things.

If the player chooses to deliberately hamstring themselves, and force the character into playing to their weaknesses, it's not a fault with the game mechanics.

On the flip side, I would agree simplified/unbalanced RPG mechanics and progression systems tend to function poorly in action RPG's. Case and point, Witcher 3. Let's not beat around the bush. Witcher 3 combat is action combat. This is fine. The problem was the progression system was too simple and, quite frankly, horribly unbalanced. The combat itself was too easy to abuse as well. Picking ability A instead of B, and using it, isn't a relevant choice if B sucks, A is over-tuned and the application of both is identical.

I'd rather see something more like TES titles, without the arguably bad implementation of the combat itself. You have a lot of different options in the progression system, those options are actually competitive with each other and the player has incentives to remain within the confines of the character ability, or strengths.

Yeah, ok, but then we're facing another problem. How much lack of skill can you represent with a wobbling barrell without it looking utterly ridiculous while still providing apt effects and feel of progression?

Yeah, in theory making the player directly experience and feel the character ability with firearms is a good idea. The character is inexperienced at shooting so the player experiences all the nuances they would experience if they were poor at shooting. In practice... I'm not so sure. It'd be difficult to get it right.
 
Hoo boy, you should try on my shoes. :D



Yeah. Simple to implement, surely, hard to tune so that it actually feels "right".
The issue is, I feel like I'm defending it from you and Su, of all people. Which is silly, because in the past you've both agreed (and fought in favor of) the concept. Now, that we're approaching the game's release, it feels like you guys have become even more hardline. I'm puzzled, to say the least.

Again, I would be 100% in favor of most of the ideas you both have proposed, but we know they are unlikely, so why not push for something that might actually happen? If we do that, maybe we can start to dig into the specifics and flesh it out more.
 
Top Bottom