- Status
Not really alone though. Jackie and T-Bug were also on the job with V.
Working with teams, even temporary ones?
Playing someone that have something justifying him being equal to the likes of Morgan Blackhand or Adam Smasher (like a chip that would give you the superpower of being controlled by a divine being called the player) ?
Being like Astro Boy? (That would maybe even be interesting if it is unknown to V)
Well, whatever reason the writers can comes with but at least have one.
At least not playing a mere Rookie which goes totally at the opposite of doing whole jobs alone.
Post automatically merged:
We will see if it applies to the whole game, but anyway I don't remember T-bug helping so much when V is soloing a whole boostergang Solo's way.
That the whole problem of the game: letting Solo being viable gameplay by itself without needing to stealth things (I don't remember even Blackhand ever did that, that's an Adam Smasher only feat).
Post automatically merged:
Even Solo doesn't do whole jobs alones, that's one of the two reason Blackhand is famous for: being able to solo a job and being able to do it without killing, two things that have been announced that V will be able to accomplish, even while being a Rookie.
Last edited:
Working with teams would be cool, but of course we don't know that you won't be doing that throughout the game. At least having one partner pretty regularly seems to be something they're going for.
I hope there is always at least the option to work with someone, just because I am a Solo doesn't mean I wanna work solo lol.
Last edited:
This type of dialogue is really good guys. I am a very busy man so I dont have a lot of opportunities to come to the forums. I hope it doesn't annoy anyone, I really enjoy creating discussions for you guys. You all have some interesting points. This community is like no other
Well, that sound like a made up problem to me. I get what you mean but, Cyberpunk 2077 is kinda its own thing and it's built around non party gameplay, unlike the pen and paper games. And forcing a "style" on the player be it stealth or combat or non violent would kinda go against the purported freedom of gameplay. It's the reason they didn't go for "standard" roles but for a fluid class system. Sure, you could invest in both stealth and combat and do a mix of both or just pour everything in either and be successful like that. Something has to give. There's no way around it as far as I can tell.
That's a CDPR decision.
They didn't want to deal with a party centric game, unlike CP2020 which is based around party dynamics. While you can certainly make a video game that's party centric you can't make an action/shooter game that is without going turn based or having a pause option and in either case you need decent allied NPC AI ... or multiplayer ... but CDPR wants to make a single-player game so that's out. Do I agree with the decision, hell no, do I understand it, yes.
Like it or not game mechanics have a significant and fundamental effect on the kind of game you can make. The mechanics don't care what you want, they only determine what you can do.
Last edited:
Anyway that's the kind of thing which, to me at least, point where the priorities are between making a C2020 RPG adaptation and making an action shooter, as EVERYTIME those two collides action shooter wins.
Besides I don't remember having those kind of restriction (no teammates) when playing Mass Effect while it's also a shooter RPG.
Post automatically merged:
I don't consider being a C2020 adaptation a "made up problem".
The more I look into it, the less I see how the game relates to C2020:
Where is the omnipresent sense of danger (no, danger isn't strong enough, lethality would define it better) which made you hold on starting a firefight as long as you could?
Where are the cyberware drawback when social system is automated (and of course if the social system has been nuked roles based on it were nuked too because of it).
Where is the Style component without social system, without the ability to see your character and without NPC reacting to it?
Without those it gives an "hollow" feels, kinda like someone made a generic Cyberpunk immersive sim then tried to rename things to make it more like C2020 which is the reverse of what should be: Starting from C2020 and tweaking it to make it an immersive sim.
Last edited:
They have the setting (with a twist due to time gap) and a list of familiar names (like Silverhand) to keep it at least somewhat recognizable to 2020 fans. That’s it. And they have a narrative-heavy action adventure (like Witcher 3) built around that setup.
No use fighting against that anymore. 3,5 months to go and we’ll see how it works in practice (or, get to witness how correctly we guessed it will work... if it so happens).
Again, it's its own thing. As interesting as a 1-1 translation from table top to video game would be, it was never really presented as such.
My original response was in reply to the notion that having perpetual party members would somehow emphasise the difficulty of the game. And that's simply not true.
Still, I may be biased. I generally dislike party systems because, in my view, they're a failed attempt of reenacting a classic PnP player party system. The only games I actually bonded with the party members are [the KotOR and onwards] Bioware games. But they made party members pretty much the focus of their games. Hell, ME2 was all about them and that game was far from a "classic" experience. I greatly favor the approach CDPR has taken in creating believable companions. Characters don't have to all be in the same place and all doing the same thing. You only play the one, "V". The rest is more or less GM'ing.
Last edited:
You don't have to have them glued to your shadow, they may be temporary, one mission only teammates.
Actually it would bear a lot of roleplay opportunity, or even better: a lot of Cyberpunk 2020 kind of roleplay opportunity, where you don't know who to trust, about treasons, revenges, survival.
Party based games more-or-less require, REQUIRE, one thing. A strict "class" system. Where each "class" has a distinct role none of the others can fill. The classic MMO "Holy Trinity" comes to mind; Tank, DPS, Healer. Such systems (needless to say) have their own drawbacks. But without the need for NPCs to fill certain roles the character can't there's no need for a party.
At minimum one more body during firefights, whatever their specialization that's a huge thing to have on your side.
Post automatically merged:
I wish I could hope so, but since almost every hope I had did get crushed.
Not necessarily. It requires the possibility for the player to create a wide variety of characterbuilds, but you can do that without classes.
Partybased game also doesn’t require ”party AI” even if you went first person party based game. A ”blobber” is a very viable way of doing that (although it wouldn’t work as a shooter then, like at all, so it would be an unlikely solution).
Strictly speaking, true. But that requires that a single character has the ability to gain a limited number of skills. Otherwise you have "Skyrim" or "Fallout" where you may have access to companions but they're hardly needed. For a party based game different party members must bring different skill sets to the table, otherwise what's the point requiring a party (note - REQUIRING, yes you may have companions but they're not necessary).
Unless the game is entirely turn based and the player controls each character individually yes, some sort of AI is required. Do your party members just stand there doing nothing? For an NPC to do anything other then that some sort of AI (even the most rudimentary) is required. And the more things the NPCs can do the more complex the AI needs to be. We've all played games with brain dead NPCs, do you really think a game like that is going to do well?
Creating a good AI for NPCs is very much a specialized sub-field of programming. Virtually any programmer can do a basic AI, but creating a good one is as much an artform as a programming task. Some people have a talent for it, most don't.
You can if you restrict the progression so the character cannot be good at everything. The underlying point of the post by Suh is a "party system" functions best when each member of the party brings unique talents to the table. It makes each member both unique and valuable in any given problem solving process. You don't need a rigid class system to get this desired result.
The above doesn't mean a rigid class system is necessarily bad. It has it's pros and cons like everything else. A more open or "fluid" class system is worse if you don't have to make hard or meaningful choices within it though. Say, you are handed unlimited progression. Or the progression is setup in a way where you can manipulate your way into being good at everything.
I mean... I'm trying to think of a game I've played where I'd describe the NPC's as "smart", whether they be companions or the opposition, and I'm coming up short. In most cases their "intelligence" would fall somewhere between a rock and a potato.
Up to the player which all skills he chooses. And you only get to specialize in limited amount of skills anyway, if you wish to be good at any, party or not.
Why ”must”? Why should the player be said ”No” if he wants a party full of tanks, or glass cannons, or a full team of rogues? It’s the assumed prerequisite that you have two tanks, a rogue, a healer and two casters; or what ever equivalent Cyberpunk might have, that makes class systems so rigid. Or, to put it another way, who says how big the party should be? Why not allow a 2 person party even if there are 20 different classes to choose from?
You can solo Wizardry 8 with a faerie ninja, and I’ve heard it’s quite fun (if challenging) too. For example.
It’s about how you build your gameplay systems.
That’s why I mentioned Blobbers. Might and Magic 6 and 7 (perhaps 8 too, but I don’t remember) can be played realtime, then there’s Legend of Grimrock, and of older games Eye of the Beholder and more to my recollection.
I understood that. It’s a given in party based games that that is part of the design. I just said you don’t need classes for that.
- Status