Dear CD Projekt Red, let's talk about shotguns.

+
I think that it's very hard to balance gameplay and realism.

Games tend to put weapons in various "groups" to make it simpler for players to have different playstyles.
You have the pistols for close combat, often silenced, usually split between the weak rapid fire pistols and the uber damage revolvers.
SMG's tend to be close range spray and pray.
Assault Rifles are the go to mid-long range weapons. Usually not super strong, but tend to be accurate in small bursts.
Sniper Rifles are death at long distance.
Shotguns... tend to be the point blank death machines, and quickly lose effectiveness beyond a dozen feet.

If realism was the focus, then many weapons would simply never be used. And so it would essentially be a waste of resources to try and program them in. They'd basically just make 2-3 guns and that's it.
 
was a double-barrel 12 gauge

You were exceedingly lucky or it was birdshot. At 50 yards 00 buckshot will penetrate wood. A cutshell at 100 yard will kill easily. Buckshot might. Slug will.


Whoops, linked the demo ranch video again. Anyway! Good fun. Pretty sure the above makes the point concisely enough anyway. As he sums up at the end, don't get shot by a shotgun at any range if you can help it!

Obviously, as Su mentions, body armour changes this. Unless they are firing these (and you're wearing 3A soft armour)!

Wear a plate kids!
 
Last edited:
If realism was the focus, then many weapons would simply never be used. And so it would essentially be a waste of resources to try and program them in. They'd basically just make 2-3 guns and that's it.

Minus there are reasons why many weapons exists IRL, and if they had their IRL pro and con (like the already given example on concealability ) in the game too then it would not be a problem..
 
I for one can say this is absolutely not true maybe inside of 40-50 yards but not outside of that. I know because I was hit in a hunting accident by a shotgun from about 55 yards away and at worst it was like getting hit by a cluster of paintballs really hard. they didnt even break the skin

I am happy to hear that you were not injured. However, may I ask what the shot was? #6 shot is used in hunting birds and small game, and not for killing bad guys in video games. Most video game shotgun mechanics use buck shot.

Bird shot has almost no power outside of 30 - 40 feet, otherwise it would rip apart whatever you're trying to hunt. I use it for squirrels and pheasant mostly. Turkey gets a sabot.
 
I am happy to hear that you were not injured. However, may I ask what the shot was? #6 shot is used in hunting birds and small game, and not for killing bad guys in video games. Most video game shotgun mechanics use buck shot.

Bird shot has almost no power outside of 30 - 40 feet, otherwise it would rip apart whatever you're trying to hunt. I use it for squirrels and pheasant mostly. Turkey gets a sabot.
was buck shot im not sure which one cause there are like 4 different variations it was not from a gun i was using or even really got to talk to guy after
 
Shotguns in my experience, vary wildly depending what size of the lead balls inside, is being used, whether it's a shell for ducks or a shell for a bear, or even solid ball... But in general most games misrepresent the experience of shooting a shotgun... I've shot it in RL and it feels very inaccurate, due to spread of the lead balls inside the shell, and very heavy single ball that has a heavy drop over distance... :) And with the lead balls spreading so much you have a better chance to hit but that one lead ball will have very little punch... :)
 
The thing about shotguns in games is, if they were more realistic, they would make so many other guns obsolete. Why use an SMG at medium range when you can just do all that damage in one shot?
Trust me, I'm with you on shotguns being ill-represented in most games (I can't tell you how many times I've outlined an enemy at close range with the pellet spread) but it's a balance thing for the game.
If I'm not mistaken, they did mention there would be different ammo types, so maybe we'll get slugs.
By that same logic, if shotguns were that good in real life, then that would make all other guns obsolete in real life, but those other guns are not obsolete, just different. The best tool for each job is often a different tool, hence, why so many different tools and guns exist in real life, and why therefor, there should also be many different guns in Cyberpunk2077. Still, I hope the shotguns are amazing, just like I hope all the weapons are amazing. I rather them all be awesome, than have them all be nerfed and equally boring as each other.
Post automatically merged:

I get what you're saying but I don't think it's so much they get it wrong, it's just that they deliberately make shotties feel that way in order to give them a specific purpose within the game mechanics. Realism therefore takes a backseat. So from the developers point of view, they're getting it right.

Given the futuristic setting, and lack of detailed gunplay and weapons info, I have no idea where CP2077 will be on this scale of things. Maybe we'll be lucky and there'll be enough different shotguns to have various usages.
I would rather all the guns be realistic and equally awesome, rather than have all the guns be put into unrealistically limited roles and have them all be equally nerfed and boring.
Post automatically merged:

I find the whole realism versus game mechanics interesting and, again, I get what you mean.

In single-player games I think it boils down to wanting the player to have to pick and choose playstyles and what skills to put points in.

If a player can use a shotgun and be devastating up close but then also deal out big damage at range then the other options seem less attractive.
Unless CDPR makes all the weapons very attractive options by making them all very very fun to use, allowing the player to choose by themselves what makes them the most happy.
Post automatically merged:

You know what I find funny? People coming up with an open letter to CDPR with their wish lists of things they want to see in a game 3 months before the release.

Technically, it really doesn't matter if this thread was started last week or 5 years ago... at the end of the day, this is just a game, and CDPR can only fit a finite amount of stuff in it. They also have a limited amount of time to work on any given project. It really feels like not a week goes by without someone starting a new thread asking for them to include X, Y, or Z in the game. And don't even get me started when some feature gets scrapped from the game... all hell breaks loose at that point. I can't help but wonder how many people that frequent this forum will be disappointed in the game come release day.

This game is the first of its kind for CDPR. They have a proven track record of improving their games from W1 to W2 and W3, so a certain level of greatness is expected from them, sure, but don't expect it to be perfect. Who knows... if this works out, maybe we'll see another CP game in another 5 years that will further improve things for us. But now? All that's left for us is do is cross our fingers and hope for no more delays ;)
I'm not trying to argue against your point of people requesting new features 3 months before release, but I do feel the need to point out the fact that only numerical values would likely need any changing in order to implement realistic shotgun physics, not exactly a huge overhaul considering the gun doesn't need to be changed, just the values of the spread and range etc.
Post automatically merged:

I think that it's very hard to balance gameplay and realism.

Games tend to put weapons in various "groups" to make it simpler for players to have different playstyles.
You have the pistols for close combat, often silenced, usually split between the weak rapid fire pistols and the uber damage revolvers.
SMG's tend to be close range spray and pray.
Assault Rifles are the go to mid-long range weapons. Usually not super strong, but tend to be accurate in small bursts.
Sniper Rifles are death at long distance.
Shotguns... tend to be the point blank death machines, and quickly lose effectiveness beyond a dozen feet.

If realism was the focus, then many weapons would simply never be used.
And so it would essentially be a waste of resources to try and program them in. They'd basically just make 2-3 guns and that's it.

On the contrary, More weapons would be used because people would feel more freedom to choose the guns they like the most because it makes them happy, considering the limitations and the unrealistic range and spread limitations that are normally added to shotguns in video games, it may actually make someone that loves shotguns finally be able to finally comfortably use shotguns for the first time ever in a video game. If all the guns are equally limited, they are all equally boring. If they are all equally awesome, players (like me I suppose) will gladly enjoy all of them and smile throughout the entire experience.

Make all the guns extremely fun to use = no matter what choice you make, you have fun.
 
Last edited:
I think even with three months left, it wouldn't take too long to change the settings in the engine to make shotguns a bit better. It's not like they need to be completely redone. I imagine it might be as simple as changing a 1 to 5.

Then again, I'm not a programmer. I wish I were, but my life took a different path.
 
Make all the guns extremely fun to use = no matter what choice you make, you have fun.

To be fair, giving guns stats that make the player think about what weapon is best for any given situation (and therefore encouraging them to think carefully about upgrades and skill points to create a specific type of playstyle) while making all the guns fun aren't mutually exclusive.

I guess if someone absolutely must have the ability to tear about with a shotgun, using it for pretty much all situations, or else they feel combat isn't fun then they might well be in for disappointment.

Then again, there might be specialised shotguns or ammo, a solid round for example, and the player would simply have to lose some of that guaranteed hit-spread in exchange.

Has there been an article detailing gun variety within the specific classes yet? I prefer to discover that stuff in game but it might assauge some people's concerns.
 
I hope movies and games never do that, otherwise this whole sub section of sword and gun enthusiasts would not have enough content to complain about on their youtube channels.
 
To be fair, giving guns stats that make the player think about what weapon is best for any given situation (and therefore encouraging them to think carefully about upgrades and skill points to create a specific type of playstyle) while making all the guns fun aren't mutually exclusive.
I do think that it's possible, because it's already possible in real life, and we still see a very large variety of different guns being created for various different purposes in real life. People also purchase a variety of different weapons, and police and soldiers also use a variety of different weapons for different kinds of reasons. If it was impossible for weapons in video games to be fun and effective but also require careful thought, then it would also be impossible in real life, but it clearly isn't, because people still have to be thoughtful and careful which they would choose in real life, depending on the situation, like police or soldier or home defense etc. Even if weapons were made to perfectly replicate weapons from real life, but in a video game, basically a perfect 1 to 1 replica inside a video game, and all the weapons were very powerful like in real life, players would still find themselves in many situations in the video game where some options were still a better choice than others depending on the situation. (Just to be absolutely clear, I'm talking about inside a video game ONLY)

So technically speaking, there is absolutely no reason to fear that weapons will be overused in Cyberpunk2077, because of the very fact that they are designed to be effective for different situations in real life, and simply just "effective" in the first place in real life. The very fact that they are effective at what they are designed to do, and the fact that players would use those tools to meet certain objectives is not evidence of a flaw in game design, it is simply evidence that firearms designed to be effective work for their intended purpose.

If someone feels comfortable just using pistols or smg or sniper or machine gun the entire game because those weapons are accurate and realistic to real life weapons, and are effective for the player in-game, why should anyone stop them by weakening or nerfing or limiting those weapons into more silly predefined unrealistic roles?

IF a player is happy, why take their happiness away? IF they like something, why not let them use it? Everyone will have their favorites no matter what, and nerfing and limiting guns may possibly only shift those favorites for some people, resulting in them still choosing other favorites, except they will be more pressured to choose a different favorite, instead of choosing one because it made them happy.

Doesn't it seem more unrealistic and less fun in a variety of different ways to indirectly force the player to feel uncomfortable using the weapons they enjoy by making them behave in silly ways that the weapon wouldn't actually ever behave like in real life?

It all just seems so counterintuitive, and it seems like a very large amount of effort to make to solve a problem that doesn't actually exist in the first place.

I say just let the guns be who they really are, and let them have their own realistic personalities, and let the players chose what makes them the most happy.

I'm 100% sure people will still be at a point in the game where they need to switch from smg to sniper because just like in real life, those guns are different from each other and fit a different role in combat. There will always be the need to change weapons, whether they are nerfed and limited, or left alone to be realistic and true. Might as well let the weapons be realistic and true anyway.

Additionally, weapons in real life used by civilians, soldiers, police, etc. are also highly customizable depending on where they live and what the laws in that area are, meaning that people in real life already also have to think about how they modify their weapons with different grips and barrels and magazine sizes and upgrades.

Skill points simply are what they are, and everyone is still going to choose what makes them happy and have the most fun at the end of the day.

:shrug:
Post automatically merged:

I hope movies and games never do that, otherwise this whole sub section of sword and gun enthusiasts would not have enough content to complain about on their youtube channels.
On the other hand, if for the first time they notice a game that finally did shotguns realistically, those same players will have plenty of content to talk about in a positive way, because they will be happy and vocal about their happiness. :shrug:
 
Last edited:
I see where you're coming from and I think it could work well in some circumstances. There's nothing inherently wrong with what you're suggesting. Most of it is down to personal taste and I would say this.

players would still find themselves in many situations in the video game where some options were still a better choice than others depending on the situation.

I'm not sure Nightcity will offer the same variety of situations that real-life armed forces face across the global theatre. It'll be more confined so I'm not sure the above statement is true. Besides, wouldn't that be contrary to the OP's desire? I mean, the OP discusses shotguns being deadly at 100 yards and I think the vast majority of combat will be at ranges less than that. Ex-military Suhiira says that shotguns are best at up to 30 metres (almost 33 yards) but even those distances would be normal within the confines of Nightcity so I'm not sure why you'd need other weapons at all in CP, except perhaps sniper rifles on the rare occasion.

If the majority of combat takes place in fairly close quarters then devs have to make decent variances for weapons within those more limited situations, which in turn means more exaggerated qualities.

So technically speaking, there is absolutely no reason to fear that weapons will be overused in Cyberpunk2077, because of the very fact that they are designed to be effective for different situations in real life

But, if what I wrote above ends up being fairly accurate and devs decided to make shotguns deadly at most of the ranges you'd expect to find in the streets, warehouses, nightclubs or apartment blocks etc, (OP says you can hit a basketball at 100 yards easily) and are also close-combat monsters then you would potentially have an uber-weapon which might be overused. It might be more used, not out of choice but out of a feeling of necessity and all the work the devs put into other weapons might go overlooked. It's one of the things I imagine drives devs to make weapons more distinct from each other, as well as to give more variety in damage-output terms, rather than just looks and feel.

If someone feels comfortable just using pistols or smg or sniper or machine gun the entire game because those weapons are accurate and realistic to real life weapons, and are effective for the player in-game, why should anyone stop them by weakening or nerfing or limiting those weapons into more silly predefined unrealistic roles?

1: Limiting a weapon doesn't automatically make it silly or less fun. 2: We have to take into account that CP isn't a mil-sim.

The moment we add strong elements of realism the whole dynamics change. Is it realistic to carry 2 pistols, a katana and 3 long-guns around town? No? Then we limit the player. That'll upset someone. Is it realistic to carry only one gun but it happens to be a M60 with belts and belts of ammo? No? Then the player can't do what you mention above 'the entire game'. Is it even legal to be seen totting that stuff around? No? Then the player has to be careful about what he takes and where. All these things might suit one player but not another.

Sniper rifles are a classic example of the things that pull at devs in different directions from a design point of view. In many games a sniper rifle is a one shot kill. So, if you wanted, you can actually just go around no-scoping people at close range and quickly use the scope for anything else. It makes a mockery of the weapon's purpose within the context of the game. Someone is 10 feet away from you and closing in with mantis-blades? Hip fire from a .50 caliber solves the problem quicker than a pistol.

They can stop you from doing this in a variety of ways (long reloads often) but usually they just severely limit ammo for that weapon in order to encourage you to save it for the 'proper' occasions. The devs also have to choose between realistic and gaming scopes. Usually, the bullet will always hit the dot, regardless of range. No drop-off at all. Why? Because it'd make using them more difficult and the player already has very limited ammo. Give them more ammo? Then off they go using it up-close again - potentially. Even making the player lay down to use it might not deter them from using it close-quarters since games usually allow the player to drop to the floor and pull out a colossal rifle in one smooth motion. You could make the weapon miss up close if not using the scope but then people would complain that it isn't realistic since you should be able to hit someone when the gun barrel is just a couple of yards from the enemies chest.

Skill points simply are what they are, and everyone is still going to choose what makes them happy and have the most fun at the end of the day. IF a player is happy, why take their happiness away? IF they like something, why not let them use it?

Skill points are there to make the player think about the character they are developing and how effective they''ll be in different ways. For me, it's part of the challenge and part of the fun. You're good at that? Ok, but you're not gonna be so good at this. I want to think carefully about whether I should put points in multiple weapons at the expense of non-combat skills. I don't want to be able to say, 'Well, the shotgun pretty much does it all so it'll be my only weapon skill. Now I can invest points in stealth AND tech because I no longer have to worry about smg's, pistols, melee or assault rifles'. But that's just me.

Your last comment shows what a difficult balancing act devs have to perform. What provides happiness from gunplay is so varied. I find shotguns great fun precisely because they are nerfed at distance. It makes it all the more satisfying when you use one up-close, knowing you brought it along for just that situation.

In fact, a weakness can often lead to enjoyment. It's not rare to run out of ammo for a mid-range weapon and be left with a shotgun. So then you need to improvise. You need to quickly dash from cover to cover to get in close, which changes the pace and makes the player think and move. If the shotgun were also mid-range, then I'd just continue to pop out of cover as if I was still using the assault rifle. All that changes is rate of fire and sound - I'm not in a different situation gameplay wise. It's not a perfect analogy but that's why Chess is more involving than Draughts, the pieces have varying strengths and uses.

I like weapons having somewhat exaggerated levels of difference precisely because it's a (non mil-sim) video-game and those differences are part of my enjoyment.
 
Last edited:
I see where you're coming from and I think it could work well in some circumstances. There's nothing inherently wrong with what you're suggesting. Most of it is down to personal taste and I would say this.



I'm not sure Nightcity will offer the same variety of situations that real-life armed forces face across the global theatre. It'll be more confined so I'm not sure the above statement is true. Besides, wouldn't that be contrary to the OP's desire? I mean, the OP discusses shotguns being deadly at 100 yards and I think the vast majority of combat will be at ranges less than that. Ex-military Suhiira says that shotguns are best at up to 30 metres (almost 33 yards) but even those distances would be normal within the confines of Nightcity so I'm not sure why you'd need other weapons at all in CP, except perhaps sniper rifles on the rare occasion.

If the majority of combat takes place in fairly close quarters then devs have to make decent variances for weapons within those more limited situations, which in turn means more exaggerated qualities.



But, if what I wrote above ends up being fairly accurate and devs decided to make shotguns deadly at most of the ranges you'd expect to find in the streets, warehouses, nightclubs or apartment blocks etc, (OP says you can hit a basketball at 100 yards easily) and are also close-combat monsters then you would potentially have an uber-weapon which might be overused. It might be more used, not out of choice but out of a feeling of necessity and all the work the devs put into other weapons might go overlooked. It's one of the things I imagine drives devs to make weapons more distinct from each other, as well as to give more variety in damage-output terms, rather than just looks and feel.



1: Limiting a weapon doesn't automatically make it silly or less fun. 2: We have to take into account that CP isn't a mil-sim.

The moment we add strong elements of realism the whole dynamics change. Is it realistic to carry 2 pistols, a katana and 3 long-guns around town? No? Then we limit the player. That'll upset someone. Is it realistic to carry only one gun but it happens to be a M60 with belts and belts of ammo? No? Then the player can't do what you mention above 'the entire game'. Is it even legal to be seen totting that stuff around? No? Then the player has to be careful about what he takes and where. All these things might suit one player but not another.

Sniper rifles are a classic example of the things that pull at devs in different directions from a design point of view. In many games a sniper rifle is a one shot kill. So, if you wanted, you can actually just go around no-scoping people at close range and quickly use the scope for anything else. It makes a mockery of the weapon's purpose within the context of the game. Someone is 10 feet away from you and closing in with mantis-blades? Hip fire from a .50 caliber solves the problem quicker than a pistol.

They can stop you from doing this in a variety of ways (long reloads often) but usually they just severely limit ammo for that weapon in order to encourage you to save it for the 'proper' occasions. The devs also have to choose between realistic and gaming scopes. Usually, the bullet will always hit the dot, regardless of range. No drop-off at all. Why? Because it'd make using them more difficult and the player already has very limited ammo. Give them more ammo? Then off they go using it up-close again - potentially. Even making the player lay down to use it might not deter them from using it close-quarters since games usually allow the player to drop to the floor and pull out a colossal rifle in one smooth motion. You could make the weapon miss up close if not using the scope but then people would complain that it isn't realistic since you should be able to hit someone when the gun barrel is just a couple of yards from the enemies chest.



Skill points are there to make the player think about the character they are developing and how effective they''ll be in different ways. For me, it's part of the challenge and part of the fun. You're good at that? Ok, but you're not gonna be so good at this. I want to think carefully about whether I should put points in multiple weapons at the expense of non-combat skills. I don't want to be able to say, 'Well, the shotgun pretty much does it all so it'll be my only weapon skill. Now I can invest points in stealth AND tech because I no longer have to worry about smg's, pistols, melee or assault rifles'. But that's just me.

Your last comment shows what a difficult balancing act devs have to perform. What provides happiness from gunplay is so varied. I find shotguns great fun precisely because they are nerfed at distance. It makes it all the more satisfying when you use one up-close, knowing you brought it along for just that situation.

In fact, a weakness can often lead to enjoyment. It's not rare to run out of ammo for a mid-range weapon and be left with a shotgun. So then you need to improvise. You need to quickly dash from cover to cover to get in close, which changes the pace and makes the player think and move. If the shotgun were also mid-range, then I'd just continue to pop out of cover as if I was still using the assault rifle. All that changes is rate of fire and sound - I'm not in a different situation gameplay wise. It's not a perfect analogy but that's why Chess is more involving than Draughts, the pieces have varying strengths and uses.

I like weapons having somewhat exaggerated levels of difference precisely because it's a (non mil-sim) video-game and those differences are part of my enjoyment.

My whole point is that if these weapons work a certain way in real life, why not allow players to enjoy them in the game? What if I actually want to walk up to enemy characters in Cyberpunk2077 and point blank sniper them? More often than not, built in limitations and weaknesses lead me to feelings of profound disappointment. Whenever I realize that something has been done in such a way as to block me from having the freedom to do something, the first thought that pops into my head is "No Fun Allowed!" and it demoralizes me and strongly shifts my opinion of the entire experience, permanently jade-ing me and rotting the immersion so that I can never take it seriously ever again.

As I said before, it seems like a tremendous amount of effort to make to solve a problem that doesn't actually exist in the first place. You mentioned the close range sniper example and the concern that it may be favored by players over the pistol, but I would argue that pistols in real life are known to be very lethal just the same. If pistols were ineffective, police wouldn't carry them as their main weapon 99% of the time. The fact that they do is proof that pistols stop criminals and make them go down very effectively. Because of this, I am sure that many players will still favor pistols, even if they know it's possible to close range sniper enemies, since pistols have a faster reload in real life than snipers, depending on the reload style and how many shot can be fired before reload.

And again, even if every weapon in the game were made to realistic standards and not unneccessarily nerfed and limited and weakened, players would still find that just like the personnel that use weapons in real life (DO NOT TRY THIS AT HOME) many different weapons are made for a variety of different reasons and roles. Players would still use different weapons at different times, even if all the weapons are very very effective. And again, even in the case that there were certain players who really enjoyed using only one or two specific weapons the entire game, to the level that they were just in love with a weapon like a very serious favorite, I would argue that there is no real reason to stop those players from enjoying that, and limiting things in the game to indirectly force them to do something different than what makes them happy.

Honestly, when it comes to skill points, I also don't like being limited. I like a challenge, but I also like the ability to work hard to eventually unlock enough skill points to upgrade/unlock all skills/perks with one character, if I so choose. Yes, I will be thinking carefully of which skills to choose as I level up and choose the skills most important to me, but eventually I like upgrading everything because it brings me a great deal of satisfaction.

Limiting skills points and levels and perks and upgrades for the sake of forcing the player to start a new game for the sake of replay ability is the exact same thing as limiting weapons to force the player to choose other ones that they intentionally didn't choose.

Honestly, if a game forces a player to recognize a false state of forced replay ability by placing unnecessary limitations upon them, this is a red flag, and a huge indicator that the developers are not confident in the replay ability of the game in the first place. I am not talking about CDPR, I'm just talking about generalized past experiences with video games.

The thing is, I already want to replay Cyberpunk2077 and I don't need any extra convincing by the use of limitations in any way shape or form to force me to feel uncomfortable or trapped or limited or frustrated for me to want to play again. If anything, I argue that any gimmicky limitations imposed upon the player for the sake of forced replay ability, actually damage the game play experience and REDUCE replay ability in the short term, medium term, and long term. If the quality of the game play experience is diminished in any way for the sake of prolonging the game play experience, then both the quality AND the replayability is lost, and the only thing that is gained is tedium, or tediousness and disappointment and frustration. :shrug:

It's the exact same situation as Ben Franklins quote about freedom and safety.

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
Now, I'm not getting political in any way, I'm just saying that it was VERY interesting how he recognized how dangerous compromises can be, and how compromises aren't actually solutions because everyone walks away NOT a winner. See what I mean? :shrug:

Compromised hulls sink ships.

Very fascinating.
 
Last edited:
Limiting skills points and levels and perks and upgrades for the sake of forcing the player to start a new game for the sake of replay ability is the exact same thing as limiting weapons to force the player to choose other ones that they intentionally didn't choose.

Honestly, if a game forces a player to recognize a false state of forced replay ability by placing unnecessary limitations upon them, this is a red flag, and a huge indicator that the developers are not confident in the replay ability of the game in the first place. I am not talking about CDPR, I'm just talking about generalized past experiences with video games.

Okay so, here is a different take on limitations. Part of the appeal for games getting lumped in this particular genre is defining a character a certain way. A unique way, distinguished from other characters you could conceivably build. In doing so the character comes more to life, so to speak. They're good at X, not so good at Y, things of this nature. Incidentally, the approach used to navigate tasks in the game revolves around these strengths and weaknesses.

You don't have to do this, of course. The alternative is to structure the tasks themselves in a way where the player gets to pick in the moment. In other words, the player can mentally construct the character in their mind and, based on options presented to them, pick and choose what they feel bests fits the character. CDPR has shown a tendency to approach dialog this way in the past. It's fine, I suppose. It's just different.

The thing is with option two you're still limited. The only major difference is with option one your choices are frontloaded. That is, your decision is made before you reach the task. With option two it's an "at the moment" sort of deal. You're still going to be imprisoned by the choices presented to you. Those are "built" into the game. They're typically built in a way where the set of characters one could make are considered (this part is why you're still limited). Built around a generic template of sorts most likely.....

Of course, you could take freedom to an extreme and let any character be good at everything. Carry all weapons, generic skills/abilities, very few limitations on progression choices. This let's you adapt in a way where you're often using the perfect tool for any job. Unfortunately, in doing so you've now absolutely destroyed most or all of the player ability to make a truly unique character. Character progression stops being character progression and just becomes... progression (I dare to say player progression).

Just to clarify, I'm not saying your request or desire here is wrong either. I'm just throwing out a different perspective.

If you're wondering how this plays into shotguns... Well, when it comes to limitations on what a weapon can or cannot do you get the same effect as option one mentioned earlier. Your shotgun is tied to a close range weapon role. Your sniper rifle is for hitting targets far away. A SMG or machine gun is for when you don't feel like aiming and want to spray bullets all over the place to clear a densely populated room. An assault rifle is for a more general role. Handguns are for when you don't have access to one of the other weapons :) (ahem, sorry... want a lower profile, need to conceal your weapon better, don't need the advantages of other weapons, want a sidearm, etc). Katanas are there for when you want to YOLO it and bring a sword to a gunfight.

So, uh, on one hand it would be neat if weapons were built in a more realistic fashion. On the other.... games don't model the miscellaneous considerations going into picking one weapon over the other well. Not normally anyway. In the case of CP2077 it arguably doesn't model the lethality very well either. IRL pea shooters and murder machines alike are "dangerous". They may not be equally dangerous and have a very long list of differences but getting shot by most guns is what we can call a problem.

Short version, without the differences across various firearms being well represented there aren't many options beyond making some up.
 
I do think that it's possible, because it's already possible in real life, and we still see a very large variety of different guns being created for various different purposes in real life. People also purchase a variety of different weapons, and police and soldiers also use a variety of different weapons for different kinds of reasons. If it was impossible for weapons in video games to be fun and effective but also require careful thought, then it would also be impossible in real life, but it clearly isn't, because people still have to be thoughtful and careful which they would choose in real life, depending on the situation, like police or soldier or home defense etc.
The "problem" is IRL soldiers and police are based on teams of people working together whereas mist video games are essentially lone wolf affairs. This is one reason most video gamers carry an arsenal of weapons. IRL weapons are good in one set of circumstances, OK in others, near-useless in yet others. This is why a squad of soldiers aren't generally all armed with the same weapon and why cops often have something in the trunk of their vehicle and the ability to call in a SWAT team.
 
I just hope they're satisfying to use. Think about the shottie from FEAR or the supershotgun from the recent Doom games.
 
Okay so, here is a different take on limitations. Part of the appeal for games getting lumped in this particular genre is defining a character a certain way. A unique way, distinguished from other characters you could conceivably build. In doing so the character comes more to life, so to speak. They're good at X, not so good at Y, things of this nature. Incidentally, the approach used to navigate tasks in the game revolves around these strengths and weaknesses.

You don't have to do this, of course. The alternative is to structure the tasks themselves in a way where the player gets to pick in the moment. In other words, the player can mentally construct the character in their mind and, based on options presented to them, pick and choose what they feel bests fits the character. CDPR has shown a tendency to approach dialog this way in the past. It's fine, I suppose. It's just different.

The thing is with option two you're still limited.
(quoted the parts I wanted to directly reply to)
Something I have noticed is that every video game I ever played that tried to introduce some kind of limitation or drawbacks for the sake of making gameplay more interesting always ending up coming across as extremely inconvenient and annoying to me, not really any more "fun". Just tedious.


Short version, without the differences across various firearms being well represented there aren't many options beyond making some up.
(quoted the parts I wanted to directly reply to)
And again, I repeat, short version of what I keep saying is that there is no such situation where the weapons would be "without differences" to each other, even if the guns were very realistic, (which I'm not even calling for a "perfect" level of realistic-ness) Because the very fact that an extremely vast variety of guns are made in real life to fit many different roles, is undeniable proof that guns are already very different from each other to begin with. To modify the guns to be I guess, even more different for the lack of a better word, is unnecessary to me because it doesn't really give the guns more personality, and actually takes their personality away by limiting them in ways that they aren't limited in real life. Making the guns more limited doesn't create more options for the player, and it doesn't change the number of weapons in the game. Instead it just forces the player to choose a different weapon than the weapon that they wanted to choose, because the limitations made their number one choice less fun, and more distasteful to them as a result of being diminished and made lesser.

Example Scenario 1: guns get limited, and players choose different guns because they are forced to as a result of discomfort.

Example Scenario 2: guns are just done fairly similarly to how they behave in real life (not perfect or anything, because sure, it's a video game, so that's fine) which results in players picking their favorites, enjoying them, and having fun and being happy. But the bonus is that ALL the guns are very good, so when the player finally finds themselves in a situation in the game that requires them to choose a different weapon because it works better for that situation, they do so, and as a bonus that weapon is also very enjoyable.

Both Example Scenarios contain situations where a player changes their weapons, but in one the player is forced and is unhappy, and in the other the player is so pleased and happy that they change weapons because it makes them feel good.

It's almost the same exact situation as school. If students go to a classroom and the teacher for example is very angry and it's stressful to be there, the students have a bad learning experience and may not learn anything.

If students go to a classroom and the teacher is very fun and friendly and still professional (so they are taken seriously) it is much more likely that the students will have an enjoyable and good learning experience because instead of being forced into a situation where they have no choice, they instead have a fun and positive experience and choose to learn, because they are enjoying it and want more. (likely that they learn a lot in this situation)

I rather all the guns be very good. This does not automatically mean that all the guns are the same, which is a very far reaching assumption in my opinion, because it is a very common knowledge that even two different handguns, keep in mind they are still both handguns, can perform very differently from each other. Because of the fact that even two different hand guns can perform so differently, and such an extreme degree of firearm variety and diversity exists, even if all the guns in Cyberpunk were made highly realistically (which I'm not even asking for perfection or anything, I just don't want silly unnecessary unrealistic limitations for the sake of solving non-existent problems that will just lessen the enjoyment factor of those weapons), all of those realistic guns would STILL very much perform differently, and they would still have their very own unique feels to them.
Post automatically merged:

The "problem" is IRL soldiers and police are based on teams of people working together whereas mist video games are essentially lone wolf affairs. This is one reason most video gamers carry an arsenal of weapons. IRL weapons are good in one set of circumstances, OK in others, near-useless in yet others. This is why a squad of soldiers aren't generally all armed with the same weapon and why cops often have something in the trunk of their vehicle and the ability to call in a SWAT team.
Yes! This is what I have been saying! :facepalm::shrug: There are many different kinds of guns in real life, all with their own roles. There is no reason to overly limit or modify or mess around with these already pre-existing roles. The only thing that happens is that now a shotgun fires with less range than it does in real life, which has absolutely no benefit to the game play and just diminishes shotguns. Are they still best close range compared to others, in some or most situations? Yes! just like in real life. (only to the best of my knowledge. I may be wrong)
Post automatically merged:

I just hope they're satisfying to use.
Exactly this.
Limitation =/= fun ( limitation does not equal fun for me)
If the guns can simply just be allowed to be the way they really are, they will be very satisfying to use and will still fit into a variety of very different roles, because that is how they are made in real life already! :love: (y)
( made to fit in a variety of different roles I mean. Guns are not "fun", I am not saying that guns are fun in the context of real life. They are tools with a purpose, and extremely dangerous in real life so do not misunderstand me okay) :shrug: ( I am speaking to any reader, not necessarily just the person I am replying to )
 
Last edited:
And again, I repeat, short version of what I keep saying is that there is no such situation where the weapons would be "without differences" to each other, even if the guns were very realistic, (which I'm not even calling for a "perfect" level of realistic-ness) Because the very fact that an extremely vast variety of guns are made in real life to fit many different roles, is undeniable proof that guns are already very different from each other to begin with. To modify the guns to be I guess, even more different for the lack of a better word, is unnecessary to me because it doesn't really give the guns more personality, and actually takes their personality away by limiting them in ways that they aren't limited in real life. Making the guns more limited doesn't create more options for the player, and it doesn't change the number of weapons in the game. Instead it just forces the player to choose a different weapon than the weapon that they wanted to choose, because the limitations made their number one choice less fun, and more distasteful to them as a result of being diminished and made lesser.

Yeah but, as noted, in a video game usually the only real consideration is how good weapon A vs B is at destroying things. If this is the only relevant characteristic then it's the only way to differentiate one weapon from the next. Otherwise you're picking and choosing between a different sound profile and weapon look but nothing else. Thus, shotguns are often designed as close range murder machines.

If we want to flip this around, go ahead. Let's say shotguns aren't close range murder machines. Let's give them similar range to, say, handguns. How is this going to play out if they remain as high damage per shot weapons (a good example where this exact problem occurs is traditional vs plasma rifles in The Outer Worlds, by the way)? Why take a handgun? Outside of using it as a sidearm anyway. This isn't going to work out great unless you either bring down the damage per shot on the shotgun, raise the lethality on the handgun or both.

So what happens if you do this? Now the handgun and shotgun are pretty much similarly effective weapons. What will drive your choice between these two weapons? At that point it doesn't matter much. At that point you end up taking the handgun because you think it looks better compared to the shotgun. It's not a very interesting choice, IMO.

To me, it's a more interesting choice if those weapons are asymmetrically balanced against each other. Weapon A excels at X but is inferior at Y. Weapon B excels at Y but is inferior at X. In this case you have to consider whether the situation will play out toward X or Y and adjust around it. Alternatively, force the situation into X or Y by finding a way to push the circumstances toward it. My character is a close range specialist so they approach tasks like one. My other character is a stealthy sniper so they approach tasks this way.
 
Yeah but, as noted, in a video game usually the only real consideration is how good weapon A vs B is at destroying things.
Based on what data? Based on who? I never limit my weapon choices to only damage ratings alone. I always factor in everything I know about the weapon before making my choices. Guns in real life are all deadly and dangerous, so if the guns were to be designed in respect of their real life counterparts, or at least only inspired by (since it's a video game) It would be a solid guarantee that they would all do at least some good damage to enemies and the environment in the game.

If this is the only relevant characteristic then it's the only way to differentiate one weapon from the next.
Well it's a really good thing it isn't. :shrug:

Otherwise you're picking and choosing between a different sound profile and weapon look but nothing else. Thus, shotguns are often designed as close range murder machines.
I keep saying the same things, and nobody ever asked for all weapons to be the same. I keep trying to explain that I feel that the weapons in the game should behave like they do in real life, instead of having exaggerated and unusual limitations placed on them. As the video earlier in the thread made clear, shotguns in real life can shoot much farther than they often do in video games. However, other weapons in real life still have better range than shotguns. So nobody is asking to make all guns the same. The shotguns still out-preform other guns in a close range setting, but they do have more range than video games often give them credit for. I think that the range and the spread of shotguns in the video game should reflect the behavior of them in real life. This doesn't suddenly make all guns boring or the same for the lack of a better word. I don't know where you are getting that.

If I keep saying that I want the weapons to behave like they do in real life, and all the weapons in real life are different, then how, could it possibly ever be that all the guns in the game would be the same? If all guns in real life are the same, then why do they make different guns? Surely they would not do this for no reason. They make different guns because all the guns are different, and fit into different roles. They can't all be the same, or they would perform badly in certain roles. Therefor, having realistic weapons in the game would guarantee that they would be different, and not "all the same". I can't possibly make myself more clear. :shrug:

If we want to flip this around, go ahead. Let's say shotguns aren't close range murder machines. Let's give them similar range to, say, handguns. How is this going to play out if they remain as high damage per shot weapons (a good example where this exact problem occurs is traditional vs plasma rifles in The Outer Worlds, by the way)? Why take a handgun? Outside of using it as a sidearm anyway. This isn't going to work out great unless you either bring down the damage per shot on the shotgun, raise the lethality on the handgun or both.
Sure. but why would anyone ever do this? This doesn't make sense because it would not reflect how handguns or shotguns are in real life. Shotguns have a certain range in real life depending on many factors, and pistols have their own role. Why change that? and again, why change that in the game to not reflect real life? Also, are you aware that there will be lots of guns in Cyberpunk? I completely expect do find pistols, swords, and then there was that big machine gun from the 48 minute demo video. Should that machine gun be removed just because it is more powerful than a pistol? Or should all pistols be removed from the game because they are not as strong? Variety is important is it not? :shrug:

So what happens if you do this? Now the handgun and shotgun are pretty much similarly effective weapons. What will drive your choice between these two weapons? At that point it doesn't matter much. At that point you end up taking the handgun because you think it looks better compared to the shotgun. It's not a very interesting choice, IMO.
Why would developers ever make a handgun and a shotgun the same as each other?

To me, it's a more interesting choice if those weapons are asymmetrically balanced against each other. Weapon A excels at X but is inferior at Y. Weapon B excels at Y but is inferior at X.
Yes! This is how weapons are in real life. I am arguing that it's unnecessary to exaggerate those differences to a comical and unrealistic degree in a video game by limiting the weapons and diminishing their value and the experience of using them (which damages the game play and makes it less fun), under the pretense that it will somehow improve the game play. I want the weapons to behave in the game the way that they do in real life (not perfect, but just a fair attempt) because I am beyond tired of playing video games with shotguns that have the range of a hot potato and the spread of a fireworks on the fourth of july. I want the shotguns to have the range that they do in real life. I want all of the weapons in the game to behave in such a way that I can say "yea, that's how it would probably be in real life" (even though I do not intend to try any of those things at home because it's deadly and dangerous, and nobody should! don't try at home!)

What I'm suggesting is fairly reasonable is it not? :shrug:
 
Last edited:
Something I have noticed is that every video game I ever played that tried to introduce some kind of limitation or drawbacks for the sake of making gameplay more interesting always ending up coming across as extremely inconvenient and annoying to me, not really any more "fun". Just tedious.

With respect.....how many games does that even leave? You can forget strategy games like XCOM for starters. The shotgun in that game? Incredibly short ranged. Versus fighters introduce advantages and drawbacks for characters too. Dark Souls has high damage 2 handed weapons but they're often slow and harder to use.

I'm playing Ghosts of Tsushima at the moment and I can use Heavenly Strike, which is cool, but guess what? It costs an energy (resolve) point. Thing is, if I only have 3 points and I want to use that ability then I'll be left with 2 and I won't be able to use my Revive power if I need it because that needs 3. Damn drawbacks spoiling my fun! ;)

In that last bit you say something that kind of sums up this whole discussion. Limitations and drawbacks are inconvenient and annoying.....to you. But that doesn't mean they're annoying to everyone and in the end CDPR are making a game, doing what they feel works best and hoping to please as many players as possible. Role-playing games often use the strengths and weaknesses system for classes, abilities and weapons to give characters purpose and identity. CP pen & paper might make most guns lethal and more realistic but this is a video-game, and one of the biggest releases this generation to boot. It's gonna have (presumably) a different take. How much I don't know.

Assuming weapons even have distinct pros and cons (I'm not sure how much of a feature that really is yet) then all that matters is how many people enjoy that compared to how many don't. I think the smart-gun has already been said to auto-aim BUT the drawback is that the bullets are slower and do less damage. Are you ok with that? Maybe because it's a sci-fi weapon?

The only differences you seem to want are that all weapons are good and deadly but that, on occasion, some will be even better. I'm with RestlessDingo32 in this regard; that design doesn't seem as interesting to me. It's not bad, I just prefer the other style more.

Example Scenario 1: guns get limited, and players choose different guns because they are forced to as a result of discomfort.

Again, how many people find it discomforting and how many find it an enjoyable design choice?

Example Scenario 2:.....ALL the guns are very good, so when the player finally finds themselves in a situation in the game that requires them to choose a different weapon because it works better for that situation, they do so, and as a bonus that weapon is also very enjoyable.

Both Example Scenarios contain situations where a player changes their weapons, but in one the player is forced and is unhappy, and in the other the player is so pleased and happy that they change weapons because it makes them feel good.

I wouldn't feel forced or unhappy, I'd feel challenged. :shrug:

Also, depending on how many weapons the character can take, how do you know they'll even be able to swap out that shotgun? If you can only take one sidearm and one long-gun then the shotgun player won't be able to swap out easily. So they'll be stuck with the shotgun. If the guns were balanced as you desire then guess what? It's not a problem, they'll be very effective anyway. So now the interesting bits of players choice of weapon and planning are kinda redundant. You see what I'm getting at?

In the end, I get the impression you're suggesting that your way of things leaves everyone happy but I doubt it's as simple as that given different people's tastes.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom