Bossbattle Variety

+
But if you were going to find boss fights annoying, you wouldn't be going down this path to begin with. This is like going to a pizza parlour and asking for burgers instead because you don't like pizza - it's a bizarre request following a bizarre choice. The developers have already provided you with a way (perhaps more than one) to bypass this fight, why trouble them with yet another? Surely they have better things to spend their time on.

That’s a very rigid way of looking at this. There’re many reasons why a specific boss fight might be annoying and why the player might have ended up fighting it.

RPG’s are kinda supposed to give the player a wide variety of gameplay opportunities, some more optimal, some less so, and reactivity to them. And one of the big yet unosolved challenges in cRPG desing (well, CP2077 isn’t really cRPG strictly speaking since it’s more like a mash up of GTA and DX:HR...) is how to make failure and defeat interesting, so that it doesn’t necessarily need to result in a reload and repetition, but rather keeps the player going with a desire to witness the results and effects of those failures.

You might consider yielding a stupid idea, but if I had made a solo with a hint of diplomacy under his belt (yes, it should be tied to character stats), I would cherish the idea that there were opportunities to utilize that build in - sometimes even wildly - unconventional ways that bear their own reactivities and consequences (whereas, in this particular case, you would reload and repeat until victorious, which is your prerogative).

And I can’t really think anything more important in an RPG, than widening the gameplay scale... even with relatively minuscule mundanities that might seem redundant on the surface (which this yielding thing isn’t).

The kind of thought that there’s no changing your mind and trying a different approach is also the reason why I loathe gated skillchecks as a cheap and rigid linearizing solution of guiding the player through a specific path.
 
but rather keeps the player going with a desire to witness the results and effects of those failures.

A novel idea for certain, but also impossibly difficult to implement in a video game. Picture yourself as the quest designer and think of all the permutations of far reaching consequences this system will entail - calling it a massive headache is a gross understatement. Unless you're ok with the game taking another 5-6 years to develop, as well as being a lot more expensive, I don't think this option should even be considered atm. It's unchecked narrative fantasy at this stage.

The kind of thought that there’s no changing your mind and trying a different approach is also the reason why I loathe gated skillchecks as a cheap and rigid linearizing solution of guiding the player through a specific path.

I had a feeling you wouldn't be into skill-checks. :)

Naturally, I have the opposing view that skill-checks are a wonderful addition and necessary in order to provide some much needed structure to anything in this game and video games in general. Structure is what gives rise to a game being classified into a certain genre, it's what defines "roles" in a role playing game. Asking for a "no limitations" gameplay system makes no sense in any type of context (even in sandbox games, this does not exist). There has to be rules, and they need to be adhered to. It's fine to have some freedom within the confines of these rules, but going beyond them will just break the experience for most players. PnP RPGs have rules and so do all video games.

Also, skill-checks aren't there to limit options, it's simply there to make sure that whatever options or "build" you choose, you need to stick with, for the sake of consistency and following a theme. Remember, it is the player that makes the choice, and a well designed game simply makes sure those choices are meaningful. A "fail-safe" mechanic for your choices in this game will make such choices a lot less impactful.
 
Last edited:
A novel idea for certain, but also impossibly difficult to implement in a video game. Picture yourself as the quest designer and think of all the permutations of far reaching consequences this system will entail - calling it a massive headache is a gross understatement. Unless you're ok with the game taking another 5-6 years to develop, as well as being a lot more expensive, I don't think this option should even be considered atm. It's unchecked narrative fantasy at this stage.

I think your line of thought here expects the consequences to be huuuge gamechangers. But that's not what I mean. They really don't need to be that elsewhere than where it would make sense in the grand scheme of things. Most of them can well be something much much smaller and more tied to the moment at hand, than something that alters things in a big way in the long run.

It'd be more work for sure, but much more worthwhile than... for example, giving daily schedules to random NPC's roaming the streets that can not even be interacted with (which, confuzzlingly enough, is in the game already... or, so CDPR has boasted).

I had a feeling you wouldn't be into skill-checks. :)

Ahah, but I am. Very very much so to boot. :p
I consider the way the character systems are handled and how they tie in with moment to moment gameplay and interactivity the single most important aspect of the game.

If I had it my way, there would be different kinds skillchecks sprinkled all over the game. Both, bigger and smaller in their impact, mundane and exotic in their nature, frequent and scarce in their applicability, passive and active in their useability. On everything: environment, objects, items, NPC's and the PC him/herself. And I'd have the player be able to invest in and build less than ordinary skills like forgery, cryptology, geology, languages, library search, human perception and so on (just examples, don't take the list too literally). And in doing so, I'd have the character systems be a tool and measurement on how well the PC can interact and operate in the world, and not so much a guidance metric over what he specifically can not do. So that the gameworld really opens up for the player to explore in ways that go beyond merely watching how it works.

BUT

But no skill gates (i.e. Lockpicking 24/25, no-can-do). Not anywhere else other than where it absolutely makes sense that the task can not to be attempted, tried (i.e. presenting specific knowledge of a certain topic in dialog or being strong enough to lift something). Elsewhere, always, an RNG check to determine success or failure (this also ties in with the topic of making failure interesting and meaningful... to what extent it can). That, or how the CP2020 rules dictate the need for rolling the D10. And this goes for all kinds of interaction, combat included.

The player should be able to try almost anything, but also have the responsibility to accept the failures and what they might bring with them.

There is apparently a skill (or perk, I can't remember) for athletics in the game. It will probably count for something like "you can sprint 10% longer/faster". I'd actually have it so, that the player can always sprint a certain amount of time freely (let's say 3 seconds by default, for examples sake), but after that, the game starts checking for stumbling or tripping and the skill/perk, while increasing the "safe" time and possibly speed a bit, it'd also lessen the chances for those negative outcomes. And if there'd be a skill/perk for swimming, I'd have it so that with no investment, the character swims slowly like a dog and has a chance of drowning if going in deeper waters.

So yeah, I am very much into skillchecks. :D

A "fail-safe" mechanic for your choices in this game will make such choices a lot less impactful.

Only if the "failsafe" (I don't think I'd want to call it that since that's not precisely what I'm looking for) is free of effort, precaution and consequence.
 
Last edited:
A game in which you play a mercenary should of course have its share of boss battles. There can essentially be Witcher contracts in this game. It'd be nice to have multiple, creative ways around as many of those as possible.

The strength of 2077's gameplay seems to be build diversity, so each type of V should be able to thrive against boss-type enemies. I'm also hoping "boss battles" don't default to big guys and lots of bullets. The Metal Gear series always knew how to balance massive scale bosses with smaller, arguably more dangerous enemies that feel as if you're fighting another player. The Cyberpunk universe has that same potential.
 
Um, no it isn't, at least not from my experience. If you've chosen a combat option, I think it's important you stick to this path, and this applies to every other option. The game allowing you to constantly go back and forth between paths on a whimsical note is not something I would associate with good game design. The moment we start branching options into more options, whilst sounding liberating, things will just escalate into a convoluted mess of a narrative that goes nowhere. Structure is needed in certain areas.

If not fighting a boss in an arena fight is what you want, then sure, the game already accommodates this, but to ask for a guns blazing option and then ask for the ability to change into a pacifist route midway just doesn't make any sense to me.



But if you were going to find boss fights annoying, you wouldn't be going down this path to begin with. This is like going to a pizza parlour and asking for burgers instead because you don't like pizza - it's a bizarre request following a bizarre choice. The developers have already provided you with a way (perhaps more than one) to bypass this fight, why trouble them with yet another? Surely they have better things to spend their time on.
We're going to have to agree to disagree. We've clearly had two totally different experience with gaming, and what you're arguing against is literally the way the system functions in 2077, so I don't know what else to say. You've still somehow misinterpreted what I said and have been saying. I never asked for a pacifist route midway (although that will be catered to, so again, don't know why you're arguing against it).

I have full confidence in CDPR's ability to design video games, and and I have even greater confidence in their ability to design video games that surprise us in new and interesting ways.
 
Last edited:
So yeah, I am very much into skillchecks. :D
We're pretty much in agreement here. It's just your statement on skill-checks sounded so "final" it made it sound like you were against the feature entirely. I'm all for creative skill-checks and I don't mind standard gated skill-checks - whatever is the most appropriate for the situation in question.

Only if the "failsafe" (I don't think I'd want to call it that since that's not precisely what I'm looking for) is free of effort, precaution and consequence.

I'm only ok with it if there are consequences (the game actively punishing you making certain poorly thought-out choices) and not an encouragement to constantly change your mind on builds, narrative choices and whatnot. An indecisive playstyle is the worst type, imho. I don't like choices that have zero consequences, it's unrelatable and makes me question why it's even there in the game to begin with.

Let's take allowing Royce to live after we've already bested him in a boss battle for instance, the consequence should be that he will get stronger later on and/or betray you in some way in future interactions. Such is the nature of his character. I'm a fan of the Nemesis system in Shadow of Mordor and I wouldn't mind seeing it implemented somewhat here, though I doubt CDPR is interested.

We're going to have to agree to disagree.

Ok, sure.

Though I'm not really sure why we are even discussing this. We both seem to already know that what you want is already in this game, which is where my confusion stems from, because despite knowing it's there, you're still concerned about the Royce fight, even though I've already explained why it went the way it went. :shrug:
 
Last edited:
My understanding is that you had the option (at some point) to warn Royce about the virus on the credchip and by doing so not need to fight your way out.
I hope this is actually a real option, I would be very happy about it. :)
 
I hope this is actually a real option, I would be very happy about it. :)

Me too.

Though I'm not really sure why we are even discussing this. We both seem to already know that what you want is already in this game, which is where my confusion stems from, because despite knowing it's there, you're still concerned about the Royce fight, even though I've already explained why it went the way it went. :shrug:

I don't know how much clearer I can put it, because that is still not what I said. o_O
 
This actually worked quite well in the Witcher 3, so I'm not sure what the issue is here. But I'm digressing a little. I think this is a rather unfair assessment of what was shown in the demo. There are a variety of choices, and their context is rather obvious.

What you are requesting isn't so much "player freedom" but unreasonable player freedom, in that you've been given choices, but would like the option to "change your mind" after making such choices, which negates the very important aspect of consequences for player actions in video games. Not only does it render the initial choices almost meaningless (because you know you'll be given an "out") it teaches the player bad lessons like it being ok to make bad decisions. Consequences are a vital part of quest design. As much as I love narrative choices, sometimes it's important to just roll with the punches and a big part of the fun of video games is "figuring things out".

But if we have to implement what you're suggesting, I prefer the following system: if you've chosen to take out Royce, you have to commit, and the game has to punish you if you then choose not to kill him, e.g. have another NPC blacklist you or something, preventing access to certain gear. Likewise if you've chosen the diplomatic route and choose to kill him instead.



This is something that sounds great on paper, but I don't think would work very well in practice, unless there is some epic narrative reasoning for it, but I doubt they can implement this for every boss. I know for me personally, if I lost in a boss fight, having the option to bypass a death-screen would be insulting. I'd much rather take the loss, reload and try again. That way, I can reflect on where my mistakes were, try to patch those up and do better.
I agree with almost everything you said, but I am strongly against the player/ V/ Me being blacklisted and locked out of anything or anyone in any way. That's what I disliked the most about the Witcher 3, even if I loved a lot about it, because I would do quests and talk to certain people and then the game would randomly decide with no warning at all that I can never talk to a certain NPC ever again, or I'm 100% locked out of a mission, quest line, or even multiple missions and quest lines or a combination of that and gear of some kind or another, or weapons- for basically no reason, totally out of nowhere with zero warning at all- and to make it even worse, I would play the game for multiple real-life hours and then suddenly find out that way way back that game had blacklisted or blocked me from doing something I wanted to do, and that was just pure suffering because I had to load a multiple hours old save and re-do hours and hours of mission all over again, but that's only if I had a multiple hours old save, and 99% of the time I did not because I had saved other important moments just in case. It was pure torture. and I re-started the game from absolutely nothing multiple different times until I just gave up because I couldn't handle dishonest quest/NPC's stabbing me in the back to lock me out of quests and items and missions, and I walked away from it eventually, completely burnt out, and never played or saw the ending missions or final ending, and I'm glad I didn't because (SPOILERS!) I saw what triss and yennifer do to geralt. I had a total multiple playthrough-length rage-quit of the largest proportions I have ever experienced, even worse than from an EA game.... (forgive me CDPR) I did love almost everything else about the game, and I gave it a very good review, but that was my experience. I'm just saying. Please don't misunderstand my passionate comments as anything ill-willed. I'm 100% nice towards you :)
(difficult to convey tone over internet text) :)
 
Last edited:
I don't know how much clearer I can put it, because that is still not what I said. o_O

It's what I interpreted from this:

My "issue" with the e3 2018 demo specifically was that the player seemed to have no choice after entering the plant but to proceed down a series of narrow corridors and fight a boss. At no point did there seem to be an option to leave or bypass the fight after you already enter, despite the fact that the player already had the spiderbot chip and thus had no reason to stick around except for the game forcing them to do so to put them in a big boss encounter.

The game never forced them into a boss encounter. The devs playing this demo simply chose this route, knowing that it would lead into a boss encounter. The narrator made it clear there were alternative options, e.g. not meeting up with the Corpo agent at all and going straight to Royce which may allow you to strike a bargain with him, it just won't be shown for this demo specifically. I also thought we both agreed earlier that the player was "trapped" inside the building, rather than simply choosing to stick around?

ut I am strongly against the player/ V/ Me being blacklisted and locked out of anything or anyone in any way.

If they were just completely random reasonings with no logic to them, then yes, I agree that's bad design. But if they were designed well with clues sprinkled in, it acts as a great reward for the player for figuring it out. It's a part of the challenge. I have 500 hours in the Witcher 3 because of its replayability due to varying choices - I also loved every single one of those 500 hours because of this. I also made sure I got every ending, and the most impactful TW3 ending for me was the worst possible one.

The demo showed clear and transparent options for what will take place (diplomacy, violence, mix of both), and I'm sure in the final product these choices will more likely than not lead to what they claim to lead to. I don't mind the odd curve ball being thrown in every now and then to keep things fresh. What I'm simply against is wishy-washy undecisive behaviour from the player being rewarded with fail-safes to make sure they're always doing the right thing at all times. I like the concept of consequences in video games, as it's far more effective at teaching you something vs giving you "participation awards" for simply pressing buttons.

If I screw up somewhere in the narrative, I want an important NPC to die somewhere, because that is incredibly impactful vs the game warning me constantly that I may be making a mistake. In essence, I want Game of Thrones for this game, not a safe family sitcom. :)
 
Last edited:
So, apparently, even after you fight your way (or sneak your way) through the mall in the latest demo, you don't have to fight the boss. Apparently, you can just sneak by or run by. Which is all I want. The only reason I brought my frustrations up at all was because I was saying I hope this design philosophy is also applied to the Royce encounter (in whatever form it comes in post-launch, if it exists at all).

The 2018 demo didn't seem to have that option. I interpreted the "So many choices" thing as so many "story" choices. Story choices are not the same as gameplay choices.

In fact, I'm 100% sure that's what he meant, because he specifically referenced the other story choices you could have made to influence the outcome. I.E. telling Royce about the chip, asking Meredith for help. FYI, I consider a "story choice" a choice you make during dialogue. I do not mind these choices influencing mission out comes. I had no problem with that in the Witcher 3. However, this game says that the main distinguishing factor is freedom of gameplay, not just freedom of choice.

If making a on-the-spot gameplay choice is something you find totally unreasonable, well.. I don't know what to tell you, except that it's pretty common in other games, RPGs or otherwise.

To lay it out again, hopefully in a more clear manner:

My "issue" with the e3 2018 demo specifically was that the player seemed to have no choice after entering the plant but to proceed down a series of narrow corridors and fight a boss. At no point did there seem to be an option to leave or bypass the fight after you already enter, despite the fact that the player already had the spiderbot chip and thus had no reason to stick around except for the game forcing them to do so to put them in a big boss encounter.

By contrast, the 2019 demo offered precisely that choice.


At any rate, I don't want to argue it much more. I hope that made sense, as I don't know how else to explain it.
Oh, I think I understand (please correct me if I'm wrong ok) you LIKE it, you're HAPPY, but you're just worried those GOOD things will get cut before launch, because you like them, but want to protect them so they stay in. I think I get it now. :D. (sorry if I still misunderstand. Peace)
Post automatically merged:

Me too.
I don't know how much clearer I can put it, because that is still not what I said. o_O
Forgive me Snowflakez :sad:
Post automatically merged:

If they were just completely random reasonings with no logic to them, then yes, I agree that's bad design. But if they were designed well with clues sprinkled in, it acts as a great reward for the player for figuring it out. It's a part of the challenge.
To be honest, 100% of the time I did not detect any hints or clues in any way shape or form from the Witcher 3 that warned or indicated I was about to be locked out of or blacklisted from the quest or mission or an NPC several real-time hours of struggle in gameplay later. Geralt was given choices, and I said "okay I'll just choose this, because it seems like a smart or cautious choice"... *multiple hours later* *try to talk to NPC* "No mission for you! I'm mad at you because you didn't do this or that exactly the way I wanted" Geralt: "But I did it for you! You didn't say I had to do XYZ, you just said I have to do X only!" :coolstory:NPC:"I'm never talking to you ever again, and you can't complete like a bunch of really cool missions now because I'm the event giver!" Geralt: "I'm sad now, and I have no save game to go back far enough to do that differently so I must now re-live my entire life" (game restart) Me: rrrrrrr...rrr....REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!
(it was really painful 4 me) (again, just my opinion, and I am being nice to you :). good will only, just a passionate post)
 
Last edited:
Oh, I think I understand (please correct me if I'm wrong ok) you LIKE it, you're HAPPY, but you're just worried those GOOD things will get cut before launch, because you like them, but want to protect them so they stay in. I think I get it now. :D. (sorry if I still misunderstand. Peace)
Yes, this is essentially what I'm saying. :)

I like the things that they've described more recently, I was just hoping that it would also be applied to the Royce situation. In other words, I hope they tweak that quest and apply this new design philosophy evenly, rather than preserve what seems to be a different, more constricted philosophy.

It could also be that the Royce situation was just an early prologue/tutorial-y type mission, so it was more contained by default (which I'm OK with).

Thank you for taking the time to make sense of what I wrote. And no worries, I was directing that last message to Tangsta, not yourself (the confused smiley one).
 
you can't complete like a bunch of really cool missions now

It's just a mechanic to add replayability to the game and makes the story more grounded and relatable, as making certain choices in real life will shut you out of certain things as well. Like I said, I like it because it made playing subsequent playthroughs more interesting.
 
It's just a mechanic to add replayability to the game and makes the story more grounded and relatable, as making certain choices in real life will shut you out of certain things as well. Like I said, I like it because it made playing subsequent playthroughs more interesting.
This I agree with you on.
 
Yes, this is essentially what I'm saying. :)

I like the things that they've described more recently, I was just hoping that it would also be applied to the Royce situation. In other words, I hope they tweak that quest and apply this new design philosophy evenly, rather than preserve what seems to be a different, more constricted philosophy.

It could also be that the Royce situation was just an early prologue/tutorial-y type mission, so it was more contained by default (which I'm OK with).

Thank you for taking the time to make sense of what I wrote. And no worries, I was directing that last message to Tangsta, not yourself (the confused smiley one).
I just hope that I actually understand what you think I think. You know?
Because you might be thinking that I'm thinking what you're thinking, but I might be thinking that you think that I think what you think, but it not be like it is, like we think it do, but it don't....
I worry. :oops:
 
I just hope that I actually understand what you think I think. You know?
Because you might be thinking that I'm thinking what you're thinking, but I might be thinking that you think that I think what you think, but it not be like it is, like we think it do, but it don't....
I worry. :oops:
:ROFLMAO:
 
It's just a mechanic to add replayability to the game and makes the story more grounded and relatable, as making certain choices in real life will shut you out of certain things as well. Like I said, I like it because it made playing subsequent playthroughs more interesting.
Yea but I didn't even know those things were what they were. To me it wasn't a mechanic or a feature, it was absolute torture that killed my enjoyment of the game, because I thought I had freedom.... and when I exercised that freedom by doing what I thought I was free to do, the game was like "Gotcha! you are totally free...- To painfully regret something you didn't even know you could avoid, and have no idea how you could have avoided even if you saw it coming, but couldn't see coming"
It didn't add replayability for me, it permanently stopped me from replaying the game ever again... :giveup: The witcher 3 hurt me. hurt me real bad.
 
I just hope that I actually understand what you think I think. You know?
Because you might be thinking that I'm thinking what you're thinking, but I might be thinking that you think that I think what you think, but it not be like it is, like we think it do, but it don't....

Yes.

I thought I was free to do, the game was like "Gotcha! you are totally free...- To painfully regret something you didn't even know you could avoid, and have no idea how you could have avoided even if you saw it coming, but couldn't see coming"

Look, I get it. It's not for everyone, but they did the same thing in Witcher 2 and I loved it then, so I was ready for more, and TW3 delivered in spades.
 
Last edited:
Yes.
Look, I get it. It's not for everyone, but they did the same thing in Witcher 2 and I loved it then, so I was ready for more, and TW3 delivered in spades.
I would have really appreciated it if The Witcher 3 warned me in some way, or the character said something a certain way, or I just had some kind of indicator that said "Warning, your going to get blocked from doing things the game KNOWS you really really want to do later". I just can't understand why a game would ever block a player from doing what ever they want. It completely ruined the experience for me since:
1. I couldn't know when or how a choice was going to happen, and had to desperately scramble and struggle to assume that every single conversation and dialogue choice was "Important quest/mission effecting choice X" and worry about it all the time, instead of allowing myself to be immersed into the game and have my character behave the way I would imagine I want them to, and basically act naturally, instead of being so afraid that I am never immersed and always making geralt appear very artificial by acting rigid and fake in hopes I would catch the important choices before they happened and steer the game in the direction I wanted to steer it in- which never happened. This happened because I couldn't choose the way the story would go out of all the options, because I was never given the freedom of choice to do so.
2. All the choices seemed completely meaningless and arbitrary/random, meaning that It was more like pulling pieces of paper out of hat and hoping I got the right one totally at random, no matter what I thought was a better way, rather than having the freedom to turn that hat over and open all the notes, read them all, and choose which one I wanted to choose. A system that promotes freedom, and especially choice freedom shouldn't prevent the player from choosing choices by making absolutely sure the player doesn't even know which choice is which. That absolutely ruined the witcher 3 for me. It was extremely disappointing and painful, and it would ruin CyberPunk2077 for me completely. I fear this, because it ruins my ability to enjoy the game 100%. :cry::oops:

I want to make my choices, and know my choices, so that when I choose them, I know that I MADE my choices, you know? If I make a bunch of choices that I think are good choices, and several things happen that make absolutely no sense at all in any way, and I can't do anything about it, this defeats the purpose of playing the game for the experience. Why? because this is what real life was like. I'm just living, and things happen, and I'm like "welll..... Nothing I could do about that" and basically just suffer. If the game is so realistic to the point that it's way past "whoa this game is very realistic and cool" and just goes into hyper-realistic territory where everything is just awful 100% of the time, then why would I play a game right? I play video games to escape and have a wonderful and fun and amazing experience. For a video game to be worth it for me, it must be better than real life. If it's the same as real life, and just as equally or more disappointing, I've been failed, and I'm totally just sad and depressed, no fun for me.

Please understand, I don't mean that V and the adventures they experience in CyberPunk2077 should be like unicorns and marshmallow rainbows everywhere. I like the dark and intense and cerebral and thrilling and philosophical experience of the setting and story of the game. I enjoy it as a gameplay experience that I can be immersed in, without being trapped there to suffer like I'm sure V is actually suffering (but thank God V isn't actually a real person, and is just a simulated video game character that I can just simply PRETEND is a real person in my minds eye of the story) The game isn't rewarding to the NPC's in the game, the game is rewarding to the player playing the game from the outside (you and me in real life). If I can't make the story go the way I want it to go for the main character V because the game itself backstabs me as the player and takes away my ability to choose the story of what happens to my character V, then the game isn't rewarding to me as the player. This is the problem with the Witcher 3. I hope to God that CyberPunk2077 warns me, and lets me know, and protects my freedom to choose so that I can't be betrayed by not knowing my choices are mine or not.
(just my opinions. all good will, all friendly tones only)
Peace :).
 
Last edited:
"Warning, your going to get blocked from doing things the game KNOWS you really really want to do later".

I would love to discuss this further, but I feel we're getting too off topic already. Let's just go back to boss battle mechanics for now.
 
Top Bottom