Do Not Be Afraid About CP2077

[Sild]

When you handle accuracy through skills, combat gameplay will get gradually faster and more fluid in a much less subtle way than using damage as the core, because when the guns are somewhat lethal from the get go, the player will notice when hits happen and when he can score those hits with much lesser focus time.

If I had to do it, that's probably how. Maybe not to such an extent as you describe, but maybe make it so that "precision hits" from a distance or on small targets (such as a weak spot) would require either 1) a big risk of getting to close to the enemy and risk maximum damage. Or 2) a significant investent in an aiming modifier (skill, stat, cyber w/e) - and yes, installing cyber has disadvantages. It takes one slot out of a limited number of them. Kinda like assigning points.

I mean, as a merc, some level of weapon proficiency is to be expected, so it shouldn't be "normal" to have a targeting reticle the size of China with a pistol.

Then again I have no particular issue with a damage progression system, passive or otherwise. I've played and enjoyed both. I also played and disliked both on occasion.

Maybe what we'll get is a blend of the two, it kinda seems that way.

 

[kofeiiniturpa]

I mean, as a merc, some level of weapon proficiency is to be expected, so it shouldn't be "normal" to have a targeting reticle the size of China with a pistol.

That's true to a point. But one has to keep in mind, that V is also... 19, was it? Barely out of his teens anyway, and just an upstart merc in NC, so it's also kinda unreasonable to expect him to be a full on combatant by nature (if the player happens to be a pro at FPS gaming). Unless you can put your starting skills already at a hefty level in character creation.

The reticle definitely shouldn't take half the screen (or be the size of China), that's very true, but it would be reasonable to have it somewhat wide and have the focus close in slower the less you have skill. The idea being that the player can reliably run'n gun (to what ever extent the game requires that) only at higher skill levels when aiming and focusing is reliably fast and accurate. But before that, pulling off accurate shots and bursts should require some commitment from the player (because the character can't do it well).

Then again I have no particular issue with a damage progression system, passive or otherwise. I've played and enjoyed both. I also played and disliked both on occasion.

Most games are about damage progression, so I'm not really diametrically opposed to it. But it works better in games that are more abstract by nature or which are simply built around that kind of thing -- think, isometric games, or FPS' like Serious Sam. Less so with games that have an in-your-face presentation and want to also be taken "seriously". I think the accuracy factor has bad rep for bad reasons, and few (if any) games that've tried it have actually built their combat to support it properly. They still work with damage being the key factor, so of course it feels bad. When you combine enemies that need 10-50 shots to put down and that you miss 30-40% of your shots, it feels absolutely terrible because your scored hits are so minuscule in their impact. But it's a whole other story if you need around 1-10 shots on average to bring an enemy down, even if you still missed several times. With every shot you manage to hit, you get a much more satisfying result every time. And when you are all skilled up, you might still miss on occasion, but combat is way, way smoother than before; and you don't need to counter that with enemies starting to get loads more HP to keep the challenge up. Just keep the rate of progression at a reasonable level that won't put the character in the position of Rambo when merely half the game is done.

That's my opinion on this. Or, the basics of it.

Maybe what we'll get is a blend of the two, it kinda seems that way.

Perhaps. It's even likely. But I hope they lean more towards accuracy progression than damage. And have the balls to make the systems actually count for something.

 

[Suhiira]

But I hope they lean more towards accuracy progression than damage. And have the balls to make the systems actually count for something.

I to would much prefer to see accuracy emphasized over damage (even tho in my case that makes an FPS less playable) because, as said, of that feeling that individual hits matter. Chipping away at a brick wall with a BB gun is never fun.

The problem, also as stated previously, is that in an FPS accuracy is provided by the player, so those skilled at FPS games will find the game "to easy" because to them it is.

Every set of game mechanics has it's advantages and drawbacks, this is why (generally) games use one set or another, because mixing them rarely works well.

Since CP2077 is an FPS it can't have individual hits count for to much (unless it goes "Diablo" and throws hordes at the player) , thus it will have "bullet sponges" ... the question is ... How spongy will the be?

 

[kofeiiniturpa]

I to would much prefer to see accuracy emphasized over damage (even tho in my case that makes an FPS less playable)

Well, that hardship could be mitigated if CDPR implemented smartguns with target lock (the sort of that I’ve suggested - for more than once). You’d have far fewer problems on keeping track of the action.

The problem, also as stated previously, is that in an FPS accuracy is provided by the player, so those skilled at FPS games will find the game "to easy" because to them it is.

That’s where the skill induced accuracy and aim focus come into play. You can’t cheese it with pro-COD skillz, at least not nearly as well.

And even so, if you read my thread about difficulty settings, why not allow FPS people to have their way. It’d be easy for them, but so what. As CDPR has claimed, ”It’s not a shooter”.

Since CP2077 is an FPS it can't have individual hits count for to much (unless it goes "Diablo" and throws hordes at the player) , thus it will have "bullet sponges" ... the question is ... How spongy will the be?

Yeah, well I’m not going to bend over for that. Not yet anyway.

Bullet sponge FPS mechanics in RPG’s are shit. The recurring theme is that almost everyone hates that no matter what part of the internet you look at.

And there !are! better ways to do it. Even if it might sound unorthodox on paper.

 

[Mybrokenenglish]

Bullet sponge FPS mechanics in RPG’s are shit.

DMG sponges are not a prerogative of FPS, at all. They ruined the genre when devs decided that FPS needed "RPG elements" as progression system (which to them are meaningless numbers popping out here and there, anybody said diablo?). So from classic FPS ("realistic" time to kill) we went to borderlands and all the looter shooters that followed. Which I personally hate. Probably fallout 3 had bullet sponges already (can't remember), but things got really ugly from borderlands on.

Oh, we all hate bullet sponges on the internet, but apparently the market loves them since every single game in the last 5 years have levels and legendary loot (which are both gameplay-wise translated into DMG sponges). Which is really sad but looks inevitable.

 

[kofeiiniturpa]

DMG sponges are not a prerogative of FPS, at all.

They certainly are not, but I meant exactly what I said.

Probably fallout 3 had bullet sponges already (can't remember), but things got really ugly from borderlands on.

It did. And it also had some effects on accuracy on top of that (I didn’t notice much of anything, but I remember several people complained about missing too much), so it made the cardinal fuckup of assuming toygunning with bad accuracy is fun.

Oh, we all hate bullet sponges on the internet, but apparently the market loves them since

There’s a difference between acceptance and love. There’s not much to choose from in this regard. And gamers need their fix. Mechanics in general are focus of more niche group, the general audience is more interested in storytelling (barring the situation when the mechanics are absolutely abhorrent) and will in all likelyhood accept almost anything as long as it is well done.

We have no idea how it would be received, if (specifically for an RPG) they toned down the damage factor and increased the accuracy one because no game has really done it and actually honed the design.

 

[Mybrokenenglish]

We have no idea how it would be received, if (specifically for an RPG) they toned down the damage factor and increased the accuracy one because no game has really done it and actually honed the design

I'm just very pessimistic about this happening anytime soon, in particular from big software houses. They just don't seem willing to take any risk in terms of game design. The only brave game design I can recall in the last 10ish years (AAA games not indie, of course) is death stranding and people keep laughing at it saying it's a delivery man simulator (spoiler: it's not)... Also, CDPR has already said what the game will be like and I don't see any other big aRPG coming soon with some potential, unless dying light 2 will prove me wrong (it looks too good to be true, so I don't believe it). It will mainly be an action game with choice and consequences (which sounds pefect to me) though, don't know if that's enough to call it RPG.

Oh, who am I kidding? I forgot the most innovative aRPG coming next year:

Spoiler

assassin's creed 2020.

 

[CyberBobber]

I'm just very pessimistic about this happening anytime soon, in particular from big software houses. They just don't seem willing to take any risk in terms of game design. The only brave game design I can recall in the last 10ish years (AAA games not indie, of course) is death stranding and people keep laughing at it saying it's a delivery man simulator (spoiler: it's not)... Also, CDPR has already said what the game will be like and I don't see any other big aRPG coming soon with some potential, unless dying light 2 will prove me wrong (it looks too good to be true, so I don't believe it). It will mainly be an action game with choice and consequences (which sounds pefect to me) though, don't know if that's enough to call it RPG.

Oh, who am I kidding? I forgot the most innovative aRPG coming next year:

Spoiler

assassin's creed 2020.

Kingdome Come Delivence series looks quite promising to me. Thats if they manage to find good solution to a combat and make bigger investment. KCD was never said to be "action" but it sure feels like one.

Also Diablo 4. not exactly rpg but Blizzard has said its gonna be totally different.

 

[kofeiiniturpa]

Also, CDPR has already said what the game will be like and I don't see any other big aRPG coming soon with some potential

I’m not really all that interested in ”big RPG’s” of today. The trends are against me and big companies don’t tend to care about the portion of the audience I belong in. I’m also following this game only because it’s Cyberpunk and there’s been some sliver of hope for somewhat interesting gameplay (it’s probable, though, that that won’t happen); like I used to follow Fallout when I still thought the series had any future.

 

[Restlessdingo32]

The reticle definitely shouldn't take half the screen (or be the size of China), that's very true, but it would be reasonable to have it somewhat wide and have the focus close in slower the less you have skill. The idea being that the player can reliably run'n gun (to what ever extent the game requires that) only at higher skill levels when aiming and focusing is reliably fast and accurate. But before that, pulling off accurate shots and bursts should require some commitment from the player (because the character can't do it well).

Changing reticle size to hamper accuracy is a questionable way to hamper accuracy. It would be better to do it via weapon sway. That is, your reticle "moves" when attempting to line up a shot. With a lower skill translating to more erratic or wider movements. It's already been done in previous games. It's been done very well in some of them. Higher innate recoil, either in general or in between shots with a longer settle down period, would be better too. To reflect worse weapon handling and shot pacing.

Just making the reticle larger, with the bullet distribution being randomized within the reticle area, is.... old. It's also lazy. Our games should move beyond these type of archaic mechanics. Your gun should not miss in a RPG with firearms, with a progression system backing them, because the RNG gods decided the bullet landed towards the right of your huge reticle instead of toward the left. It should feel harder to aim.

I'll mention the example of KCD archery once again. Early on in that game just hitting something with a bow was incredibly difficult. Not because you randomly miss due to a larger targeting cross-hair but because lining up the shot using the side of bow and character hand (X and Y axis, respectively), accounting for any ranging due to the distance to the target, and at the same time executing the timing of the draw to release period was hard. Pile some archery skill on Henry and it becomes far less difficult to line up that same shot. Your bow is steadier. Acquire enough skill in archery and you can dump arrows into logs rolling down a river quite reliably.

It doesn't have to be between fully player reliant aiming or a cheap system using dated mechanics to throw RNG masquerading as character ability into the mix. You can have a system where the player is in control but appropriately feels like their ability resembles the proficiency level of the character. With such a system there is no need for bullet sponges where they should not exist. Mechanics fitting this theme should be the goal.

 

[KakitaTatsumaru]

Changing reticle size to hamper accuracy is a questionable way to hamper accuracy. It would be better to do it via weapon sway. That is, your reticle "moves" when attempting to line up a shot. With a lower skill translating to more erratic or wider movements. It's already been done in previous games. It's been done very well in some of them. Higher innate recoil, either in general or in between shots with a longer settle down period, would be better too. To reflect worse weapon handling and shot pacing.

Just making the reticle larger, with the bullet distribution being randomized within the reticle area, is.... old. It's also lazy. Our games should move beyond these type of archaic mechanics. Your gun should not miss in a RPG with firearms, with a progression system backing them, because the RNG gods decided the bullet landed towards the right of your huge reticle instead of toward the left. It should feel harder to aim.

Minus the larger reticle is a better way to represent what's happening IRL.
When IRL I cannot shoot immobile targets with a pistol it's not because of weapon sway, it's because when I target something I'm just unable to shoot where I aim because my pistol skill is too low.

On contrary when I shoot with a scoped rifle I shoot exactly where I aim, meaning my rifle skill is high enough to shoot exactly where I aim.

Weapon sway isn't really a thing IRL when you are aiming, it's more something that happens when you pull the trigger meaning it is better represented by larger reticle than by weapon swaying during your aim.

 

[kofeiiniturpa]

Changing reticle size to hamper accuracy is a questionable way to hamper accuracy. It would be better to do it via weapon sway. That is, your reticle "moves" when attempting to line up a shot. With a lower skill translating to more erratic or wider movements.

Well, I'm not really in disagreement here, a big circle at the center of the screen is dubious, but I would like to point out that the real "big" difference between that and sway is merely presentational one. You still have an area inside which the character aims rather erractically. But the caveat of showing that erraticness is that.... If you want it also matter in gameplay and have that satisfying progressive element to it (which as an RPG, it should have, and underlined to boot), it is really hard to pull it off visually without the barrel or the reticle looking like you're doing a Jackson Pollock painting with wide strokes. Plus, again, if you're doing it so that it actually matters in gameplay, putting a wildly moving object on the screen pulls your attention from the game and makes you stare and follow the reticle to pinpoint when exactly it is on top of the enemy/object you're aiming at. That might not be a problem to some players with good hand-eye coordination, and those people can cheese the mechanic even with lower skill levels. Others are not so lucky; to them it is basically a minigame of dexterity wihin the combat situation when you're supposed to be following your surroundings too.

And if you put the sway values on the gun at the bottom of the screen, it might look like holding a firehose the character can't control. Someone made a mod to Fallout 3 back in the day that tried to do that, and it looked exactly as I described.

It's already been done in previous games. It's been done very well in some of them.

I can't offhand recall any. And that's not me being stubbornly in denial or facetious. I really can't think of any game that has done it in a way that would've caught my attention (and believe me, it would have, had I encountered one).

Higher innate recoil, either in general or in between shots with a longer settle down period, would be better too. To reflect worse weapon handling and shot pacing.

That I agree with (and have suggested as much).

Your gun should not miss in a RPG with firearms, with a progression system backing them, because the RNG gods decided the bullet landed towards the right of your huge reticle instead of toward the left. It should feel harder to aim.

That's what happens in real life when you're pulling hip fire in situation in motion. And it is hip fire when you're not looking through your sights and focusing. *shrug* That's what the cone of fire represents. It's not aim, it's pointing the gun towards a direction. And if you are skilled and focus for a bit, you can get steadier and more reliable results. If you look through the sights and have gun circle there a bit and disalign front and rear sights (based on character skill), no problem. Although, focusing is a key element there too. That's why I keep bringing up the Deus Ex style focusing crosshair.

Certain amount of erraticness and randomness is required so that the character is allowed to be worse than the player (initially, at least). And it does make aiming hard if you have to focus to pull off an accuracte shot (or, as accuracte as the character can be with the skill he has and the specific gun he's using). Archaic or not, it's a design that works. And it is fair to all players - just like to hit chances in turnbased games - in that it doesn't discriminate through player aptitude (which is at the heart of an RPG).

You can have a system where the player is in control but appropriately feels like their ability resembles the proficiency level of the character.

Would you describe one to me that puts all the players in the same kind of starting position (at least to a certain degree) regardless of their FPS skills?

----------------------------

I think the best way would be to not give the player a reticle indicative of the center of aim or how wide the angle of accuracy is at all. Just a dot that representes the general direction the gun is pointed at. And the exception to that being the focus reticle that starts wide and closes in for a more accuracte shot (speed and wideness based on skill) and which might appear if you hold the gun on top of the target for a while. It also neatly mirrors the CP2020 rule where you can wait a turn to get a +1 to your aim (I think you could that twice there). Otherwise, you just shoot at the general direction with erractic accuracy (again, based on skill and the gun being used).

And if you pull up your sights to actually aim, you can have the weapon sway like a snake in distress there and have the recoil throw it off, and possibly blur the areas outside the sights (perhaps clear out more as you get more skill).

I leave the smartguns out of this since I think they should have their own mechanics completely.

 

[StereoFlava]

Ya soundtrack for this game will be amazing i dont get the skepticism there's something literally for everyone with so many artists and in house production.
Something to keep in mind is that those artists are probably mostly for radio the actual music that will play in the background is in house production plus the Judge Dredd(Paul Leonard-Morgan ) composer who is amazing.
This right here is fucking sick

 

[Suhiira]

Two things that I've never seen represented in video game long range shooting are MOA (Minute of Accuracy) and wind. MOA would be pretty easy to add, every 100m the dispersal increases. Wind, not so much, simply because wind effects nearly everything and the amount of math and rendering needed would be astronomical.

While MOA is insignificant at short ranges at anything over about 500m it's very significant indeed.

 

[Sild]

A game that did that wouldn't be a "game" anymore. I don't think even VBS3 does that.

 

[Restlessdingo32]

Minus the larger reticle is a better way to represent what's happening IRL.
When IRL I cannot shoot immobile targets with a pistol it's not because of weapon sway, it's because when I target something I'm just unable to shoot where I aim because my pistol skill is too low.

On contrary when I shoot with a scoped rifle I shoot exactly where I aim, meaning my rifle skill is high enough to shoot exactly where I aim.

Weapon sway isn't really a thing IRL when you are aiming, it's more something that happens when you pull the trigger meaning it is better represented by larger reticle than by weapon swaying during your aim.

This is a case where realism is secondary to good game play. When cross-hair size increases to represent less character proficiency the player doesn't experience greater difficulty. The mechanics consist of snapping to a target quickly, pressing the fire button while on target and remaining on target until it's no longer a relevant threat. These are the mechanics characteristic of a competitive FPS. The only difference with cross-hair size scaling is the player can perform these actions properly but still miss.

Where weapon sway and other thematically similar mechanics shine is they make the action itself more difficult to perform. If the character lacks proficiency the player should feel increased difficulty using firearms. With the increase in difficulty corresponding to any decrease in proficiency.

This is the crux of what I'd classify as "RPG mechanics", by the way. The player is piloting the character, so to speak. So any weakness or strength of the character should be appropriately reflected on the player. It's where a great number of real-time RPG's fall short. They have a narrative, character progression, stats, skills, perks, lore, choices and consequences, character depth, etc. Yet, in general they have pure action mechanics in other areas. Combat is one of the most common areas to get this treatment.

Lastly, I don't want it to sound like I'm championing weapon sway. By archaic mechanics I mean giving the character more or less flat damage bonuses. Or giving them a bigger or larger reticle. This type of stuff doesn't make various actions more difficult to perform. It makes those actions less effective.

I can't offhand recall any. And that's not me being stubbornly in denial or facetious. I really can't think of any game that has done it in a way that would've caught my attention (and believe me, it would have, had I encountered one).

I mentioned KCD archery earlier. The reasons being the impacts were readily apparent and it had the progression system backing it. As the player you were initially handed frustration. At low archery skill it was hard to hit much of anything. Even the oblivious deer standing in one spot taking a drink. Once the character became better, or the player improved the archery skill, the frustration was replaced with satisfaction. At that point you felt like a competent archer.

Archery isn't directly comparable to firearms. The important bit is the aiming mechanics. The difference between unskilled vs skilled. The fact the player had trouble hitting the broad side of a barn starting out but could put one between the eyes of a rabbit at distance after progressing. As mentioned above, the weakness or strength of Henry as an archer was reflected on the player.

Another example would be Metro Exodus (yes, I'm aware this is a survival/FPS game with a story). With scoped weapons in particular you would have to manage the cross-hair movement. Although, this may have been designed to represent various factors (wind, breathing, stabilizing the weapon, etc.).

Would you describe one to me that puts all the players in the same kind of starting position (at least to a certain degree) regardless of their FPS skills?

I don't have a good answer for your question. It's hard to provide the described goal in a real-time game. My statement was meant to convey you can have a RPG where the mechanics of the combat occur in real-time but the player feels the strengths and weaknesses of the character build. I don't think it's possible to have real-time game play where the player ability is completely irrelevant. The next best thing is to at least make them feel worse or better when the character is worse or better at a task.

 

[KakitaTatsumaru]

This is a case where realism is secondary to good game play.

Good gameplay is something subjective anyway.
To me things which makes the game more immersive is good gameplay.

 

[kofeiiniturpa]

I’m not sure I have it in me to keep doing this anymore. The game is going to have (cheap, I presume) shooter combat with minuscule stat effects. Spitballing and brainstorming here isn’t going to change that. And keeping thoughts on something better only makes the inevitable feel worse. So...

Ta ta.

 

[Mebrilia]

I have to say i had while ago to see the live gameplay in a show here in italy. Lucca Comix and Games and again i was not impressed. I don't see emergent gameplay elements or very in depth immersive sim elements. Seems we have a pattern between story decisions and some freedom in how to tackle situations with different outcomes but gameplay speaking it did not felt a RPG at all.

It felt like a Deus ex HR in oper world with unimmaginative FPS mechanics and some degree of interaction in the ambient. There was no new area shown only the uncut version of the Deep Dive video. And again from a title that has his core in a pen and paper game i felt the overall experience was a watered down version of cyberpunk that tries to look cool but in the end aside of that is just a collage of "features" of other FPS around.

Honestly when it comes to feeling of immersion. I felt way more immersed in the first mission of red dead redemption 2 than this videos i saw and the gameplay i saw.

The core problem is not just the visual of gameplay chosen but also the fact that CD projekt red seemed really confused at what a Playing a character means.

In fact while the game promotes Player Agency there is very little character agency.

To make you understand it was like comparing Fallout new vegas with Fallout4.

Fallout4 offers a lot of player freedom in doing what you want to do.

Fallout NV offer a lot of way to costumize your character taking in account who kind of person your character is what is good and bad about it. ((for example a character with high diplomacy skills could talk himself alway from many situation)).

Cyberpunk2077 lack this totally for what i have seen. And the so called RP mechanics are just watered down to Terminator/Solid snake hackerman/Crafting skills.

Despite what they say i still think Cyberpunk 2077 is not an rpg.

It is more like an action adventure with fps elements and a branching narrative.

 

[Suhiira]

It's a matter of trying to appeal to the widest possible market. And like it or not RPGs are a niche market, shooters on the other hand have a huge market. The problem is the two play styles are almost totally contradictory, and no amount of wishful thinking or clever game mechanics is going to change that.

I'm still unsure if I'll be able to play CP2077. Yes I can use the "smartguns", but what I've seen and heard of their mechanics makes them sound so lame I'm hoping (praying?) that at lower difficulty levels the FPS is something I can manage (same for the jumping, dodging, platforming mechanics).