Will CDPR ever respond to lack of RPG Mechanics and lack of choices?

+
I'm still very surprised to read this kind of assertion on this forum. Anywhere else, I think on social networks, it would be normal, but here, on this forum, where many players have objectively pointed out flaws inherent to the game that are far from personal expectations or desires, I don't understand that, a year and a half later, one can still read that. Loving a game and spending hundreds of hours on it, as I did, does not mean that the game is flawless, perfect. I love C2077 but that doesn't stop me from recognising its many faults. The criticisms made of it are more than legitimate.

Even today, players come to this forum every day to complain about bugs or mechanics that don't work or gameplay or story. If the criticisms are sometimes still the same as when the game was released (and whatever one may say, the game has not changed much since then), in a year and a half, their formulation has evolved towards something more precise and objective. All that certainly doesn't reflect the DNA of a great game (even if some aspects of the game - story, characters, NC - are great) regardless of the personal pleasure one may derive from playing it. Apart from the false debate of whether it's an RPG or not.

To continue to say that the other's speech is purely subjective (often in order to discredit it), even though the other has given a host of objective arguments in numerous subjects on this forum for example, is to show the greatest subjectivity. Some people did criticise the game as it is (and the game as it is today is open to criticism), not what they think it could or should have been. After that, everyone has their own opinion, but also their own arguments. Both are important and often go hand in hand.

As for hoping that the game will improve with future updates and an expansion, that's just hope and new expectations, we can't tell. New content doesn't mean better game. We'll see. Will new content bring new RPG mechanics or at least improve the RPG aspect of the game ? I don't think so. So CDPR probably won't address the lack of RPG mechanics in this way.
There's no such thing as an objective opinion. Even if I try to handle my opinion as objectively as possible, it's still my subjective conclusion. All opinions are arguments.

If we want to be objective, then here's the only one objective response to the arguments you make about bugs and mechanics:
Pick any CRPG of roughly the same scale and scope, and I will, in turn, link you to hundreds if not thousands of pages tech support issues and complaints from players about bugs that "have been in the game since release."

Not all bugs are fixable. I can boot up Fallout 4 and show you some of the exact same engine bugs that existed when Morrowind released on the original Xbox. I can boot up Dragon Age Inquisition and show you the terrible stuttering and hitching that occurs on PC during cinematics to this day. I can pull up Pillars of Eternity, and show you the same bug where a buff or debuff from a spell or skill gets stuck permanently until the game is closed to Windows and restarted. Most pointedly, I can boot up The Witcher 3 and show you bugs where weapon damage does not display properly in the inventory screen, quest lines that overlap and break NPC dialogue, examples of people that cannot open the Wolf Gear chest in Kaer Morhen, playthroughs where the Hearts of Stone expansion will not start properly...

Every massive game has issues. CP2077 is no exception. It had far less intrusive bugs than TW3 had at release. (I had to restart TW3 multiple times before I finally made it through a complete playthrough.) And yet TW3 is lauded as a masterpiece and instant classic...and Cyberpunk is much more divisive.

This isn't because it's "objectively" broken and misrepresentative. It's because people didn't like the game. Everyone is welcome to their own subjective opinions.
 
Absolutely. And I've been trying to argue this ever since CP2077 was officially announced. Cyberpunk 2020 is a tabletop PnP game. No CRPG is going to be a 1:1 translation of a PnP RPG. Ever. (It is possible to recreate PnP as a computer program, and there are a fair few programs that do exactly that. Those, however, are toolsets. The game itself is...still PnP.)

Any time a game is adapted to a different medium, there will be changes. Here, CDPR attempted to do what they do best: create a sweeping cinematic experienced based on the universe that Mike Pondsmith created. The results are not a PnP RPG experience -- they are a CRPG experience. Whether people want more of this, or less of that, it's entirely subjective. Most people I've spoken to like the game a lot. It simply didn't reach The Witcher 3 levels of oh-my-god-this-is-the-best-game-ever. Very few games ever will. And yet I had a lot of fun with it. I still say Night City is the most incredible urban environment I've ever seen in a game.

The RPG elements are there in spades. Has it been done arguably better in other games? Yes, I would agree. But there's no lack of them. It just didn't work out as monumentally as everyone hoped.

Personally, while there are definitely areas I'd like to see improved in future updates, expansions, or sequels, I'm not disappointed by what's here. The primary reason the game is getting this much flack is because CDPR made it. If this game had come from a developer no one had ever heard of before, the reviews would be praising it as "...a flawed gem that's still definitely worth your time!" There's nothing inherently wrong with the game -- it just didn't live up to many people's wildly steep expectations.

On the other side of that coin, once again, I'm sure it was a (likely somewhat painful) learning experience for everyone involved in the development. CDPR has always been extremely ambitious, and here, it seems they bit off a bigger chunk than they could readily chew. Balance is not easy.

They dont have to trasnlate PnP, but they could give us Cyberpunk. Cyberpunk 2077 was almost like Star Wars without space. I hope they bring more Cyberpunk for an expansion. Roles could be great start. Ive read quite much steam forums and people still think Cyberpunk is GTA.
 
There's no such thing as an objective opinion. Even if I try to handle my opinion as objectively as possible, it's still my subjective conclusion. All opinions are arguments.
For information, an opinion can be based on objective reasoning, analysis, criteria and arguments. And the principle of a conclusion is to be consistent with what precedes it.

(...)

This isn't because it's "objectively" broken and misrepresentative. It's because people didn't like the game. Everyone is welcome to their own subjective opinions.
Well... Thank you for illustrating my point perfectly.

Almost everyone who gives more or less negative feedback on this forum about bugs, game mechanics, gameplay in general, the story and how it's written, the characters, etc., does so because they play the game and because they like the game. Otherwise, they would not waste their time coming to the dedicated forum, describing their problems and views, discussing with other players, looking for solutions, talking about the future of the game, etc. They do like the game, but they are not blind to its flaws, because they have experienced them.
To say that they don't like the game just because they don't hail it as the new messiah of videogames, I don't know how to describe it, but it's definitely not true.
 
Last edited:
i have had over 10 restarts on CP77 for encountering issues where the game is litterally unplayable past the point of the bug and loading a previous save did not help. Characters not loading. being underground somehow. Cars floating way above the possible realm of entering them

I had 2 clean playthroughs and now with all the bugs brought on by 1.5 i couldn't even be bothered to try and see what new game breaking bugs they added.

Yes they have fixed some bugs but game is still broken and with the first expansion a year away game is basically dead
 
i have had over 10 restarts on CP77 for encountering issues where the game is litterally unplayable past the point of the bug and loading a previous save did not help. Characters not loading. being underground somehow. Cars floating way above the possible realm of entering them

I had 2 clean playthroughs and now with all the bugs brought on by 1.5 i couldn't even be bothered to try and see what new game breaking bugs they added.

Yes they have fixed some bugs but game is still broken and with the first expansion a year away game is basically dead
I suppose that's unfortunate and you're quite unlucky, because 3 playthroughs in 1.5+ for me (about 150hrs each), I didn't encounter any major bug and above all, the game is perfectly playable :D
 
I suppose that's unfortunate and you're quite unlucky, because 3 playthroughs in 1.5+ for me (about 150hrs each), I didn't encounter any major bug and above all, the game is perfectly playable :D
I played Cp2077 from start to finish upon release and I never had a single issue with the game. The next gen update came out and I bought another copy for my series X. Even with that, not a single issue. I understand some hardware configurations for PC users are going to cause issues due to poor maintenance, bloatware, overclocking ect. Another huge culprit of issues, and this is for most modern games now, is people still using HDD's. Not being able to load in textures and objects fast enough breaks the game. Falling through the map because the ground didn't load in fast enough. Also, a lot of people really don't pay attention to game requirements anymore. Some people still believe that minimum requirements will still net you a smooth gameplay experience. That is not the case.
 
There are some actions that profoundly affect the endgame. One having to do with Panama, and many having to do with Johnny.

I played Cp2077 from start to finish upon release and I never had a single issue with the game. The next gen update came out and I bought another copy for my series X. Even with that, not a single issue. I understand some hardware configurations for PC users are going to cause issues due to poor maintenance, bloatware, overclocking ect. Another huge culprit of issues, and this is for most modern games now, is people still using HDD's. Not being able to load in textures and objects fast enough breaks the game. Falling through the map because the ground didn't load in fast enough. Also, a lot of people really don't pay attention to game requirements anymore. Some people still believe that minimum requirements will still net you a smooth gameplay experience. That is not the case.
Playing on a series S. A lot of console and PC users are reporting problems to blame it on the hardware is just an excuse to over look a faulty game
 
There's no such thing as an objective opinion. Even if I try to handle my opinion as objectively as possible, it's still my subjective conclusion. All opinions are arguments.
There is a limit to subjectivity, though. If everything was completely subjective, then there would be no consensus on anything. Everyone is an expert at anything, everyone is talented as Mozart at everything. Or, everyone is equally incompetent at everything.
Do you think it's a pure random coincidence why CDPR always receives widespread praise when it comes to writing, music, characters, etc? That they somehow just randomly design it based on "how they like it", and somehow millions of people just coincidentally find it good? And this somehow always keeps repeating itself?
There are tried methods and techniques on what creates good writing, good level design, etc. One of CDPR's level designers ( Max Pears) often has talks about it, and most people would be surprised how much "science" goes into it, how many things they have to take into account. And this is something developers have learned through decades, passing experience from one to another.
Level design in Dishonored is objectively better than in Skyrim. But it is not objectively better than in Elden Ring.
Likewise, there are very valid, objective reasons, no matter someone's personal like/dislike, why CDPR rarely ( if ever ) receives praise for it's gameplay and rpg mechanics. They are thematically incompatible with narrative and setting/worldbuilding, filled with design oversights and inconsistencies, different aspects often contradict or nullify one another, and it's better described at being shallow with emphasis on quantity over quality.
 
it's better described at being shallow with emphasis on quantity over quality.
Can you, please, give examples of rpgs with not-shallow, deep gameplay mechanics? Because, as far as I can tell, "gameplay" is a weak link in most of this types of games, even those that are considered classics.
Level design in Dishonored is objectively better than in Skyrim. But it is not objectively better than in Elden Ring.
Now, I haven't played Elden Ring, but from what I've seen, it can be boiled down to "open-world Souls game" and if my conclusion is correct, then judging from previous Souls games that I've played, the game has nothing on Dishonored, especially in terms of level design.
 
There is a limit to subjectivity, though. If everything was completely subjective, then there would be no consensus on anything. Everyone is an expert at anything, everyone is talented as Mozart at everything. Or, everyone is equally incompetent at everything.
Do you think it's a pure random coincidence why CDPR always receives widespread praise when it comes to writing, music, characters, etc? That they somehow just randomly design it based on "how they like it", and somehow millions of people just coincidentally find it good? And this somehow always keeps repeating itself?
There are tried methods and techniques on what creates good writing, good level design, etc. One of CDPR's level designers ( Max Pears) often has talks about it, and most people would be surprised how much "science" goes into it, how many things they have to take into account. And this is something developers have learned through decades, passing experience from one to another.
Level design in Dishonored is objectively better than in Skyrim. But it is not objectively better than in Elden Ring.
Likewise, there are very valid, objective reasons, no matter someone's personal like/dislike, why CDPR rarely ( if ever ) receives praise for it's gameplay and rpg mechanics. They are thematically incompatible with narrative and setting/worldbuilding, filled with design oversights and inconsistencies, different aspects often contradict or nullify one another, and it's better described at being shallow with emphasis on quantity over quality.
There is no limit to subjectivity, and believe it or not, everything, ultimately, is completely subjective. Even our understanding of objectivity, itself, is subjective based on the way we understand it and how we apply it, where we draw the lines, etc. Everyone is equally incompetent at everything. That is a very true way of looking at the world.

So, everyone that really cares does their best, and no matter how well they do, some number of people are invariably going to call it rubbish.

On an strictly academic level, you're misusing the phrase "objective" numerous times. Simple example:
"Level design in Dishonored is objectively better than in Skyrim. But it is not objectively better than in Elden Ring."

Both of the arguments stated are invalid. In order for anything to be "objective", it must be empirically verifiable. In order to be empirically verifiable, all parts must be universally true or false 100% of the time without a single exception, variation, or inconclusive return. If even one, verifiable deviation can be found (even after 350 years!) -- the entire theory is immediately dis-proven. It is not objective fact; it immediately becomes subjective argumentation. There is no, empirical authority that determines what "good level design" entails. This is extremely easy to prove. Let's hear from Negative Ned over here:

Ned: "I don't like either Skyrim or Dishonored, actually. The best game in the world for level design is the original DOOM. That game had everything right. It was instantly playable. The levels made complete sense. And the spaces were totally varied and challenging. Both Skyrim and Dishonored are just recycled spaces with a few different textures. Plus, all they do is lift from other games in the genre. Neither of the games introduced anything innovative about level design -- they just relied on tropes and graphics. And don't even get me started on Elden Ring. That game is surrealistic trash. It's worse than Breath of the Wild for how much of the player's time it wastes just getting from one place to another. Pretty much all modern, triple-A games have incompetent level design."

Viola. No one can prove that Ned does not actually feel this way, meaning that there is no way to objectively declare either Skyrim, Dishonored, or Elden Ring have either superior or inferior design elements.

It's all -- ALL OF IT -- subjective opinion.

What I think you're confusing for objectivity is popularity. Yes, you'll be hard pressed to find large numbers of people that argue Elden Ring's world is not excellently designed. But I'll only need to hop one thread over to find several people that disagree. I absolutely love it. But here's a simple fact: I was much more impressed by Night City. Here's another fact: my opinion does not supercede the opinions of others, even if they are more popular. Someone that hated Night City because it was [InsertComplaint] is just as valid as my opinion -- whether it's more popular or less popular. Popularity has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on objectivity. It is entirely possible for 10,000 people to argue against 1 person, and for 10,000 people to be proven wrong -- empirically.

And that brings us right back to the core of this thread:
"Will CDPR ever respond to the lack of RPG mechanics and lack of choices?"

I'd say..."No." They have nothing that they can respond with. There are multiple layers of menus that clearly identify the role-playing mechanics in the game. There are numerous places where the player can choose to handle situations any number of ways. There are many different ways for dialogues to pan out, and many of them have direct impacts on how events unfold after them.

Alright.

Some people want, "More of these!" Some people argue, "Less of those!" This guy says, "Why isn't this!?" That gal asks, "Where is that!?"

These individuals simply don't like how the role-playing and choice/consequence was incorporated. Okay. That's fine! No one is going to force them to play the game.
 
Both of the arguments stated are invalid. In order for anything to be "objective", it must be empirically verifiable. In order to be empirically verifiable, all parts must be universally true or false 100% of the time without a single exception, variation, or inconclusive return.
OT, when I say :
"5 is objectively more than 4"
or
"@SigilFey can objectively ban me from the forum for this little off-topic"
I'm right, isn't it :)
 
It's all -- ALL OF IT -- subjective opinion.
Liking a game is subjective, yes. Bugs are not. Bugs indicate the software is broken in some way. It was designed, or coded, to do X. If X isn't the result then the software has a failing somewhere. Your earlier post was talking about massive games having issues. Massive games involve a lot of bugs because they are released objectively broken.

Yes, it's fair to call it normal. Most software is objectively broken in some way. Games are frequently bugged and display unintended behavior under the right circumstances. Errors exist in the code. A lot of moving parts and great room for error. Writing this off as subjective is disingenuous. It's also fair to say mileage varies here. Some developers push out buggier software compared to others on a routine basis.

I'd point out, none of this had anything to do with the thread topic. Quite a bit of the posts do not. Comments on the game reception, bugs, what is or is not objective or subjective. It's all off topic.
These individuals simply don't like how the role-playing and choice/consequence was incorporated. Okay. That's fine! No one is going to force them to play the game.
And? I personally think the thread topic makes a valid point. As a concept many minor +/- bonuses spread all over progression, the specific perk construction, plethora of item clones in the gearing/itemization, etc. is a little uninspired. As a player I am not impressed. I do not look at such systems and think "these are the type of mechanics I like to see". Subjectively it's not a good concept.

More to the topic, if such a system is the best case scenario then I could see simplifying these systems. Reducing the quantity within them. Streamline the progression, gearing, itemization and various other areas. Place further resources into the story, characters and cinematic elements. Alternatively, retool this extra cost into further testing.

"Better" mechanics would be the ideal, yes. Subjectively better mechanics. But.... this isn't the topic. It's not the choice being posed. The topic is setting the status quo as the limit. The "best" mechanics we can hope are those provided in CP. Again, from a subjective viewpoint.

As a response to the take it or leave it comment.... You're correct. Nobody is forced to play the game. Nobody is forced to buy it either. Nor are they forced to buy the next game or the one after that. When you consider the implications here it should be clear why one player telling another to take it or leave it is self-defeating.
 
And? I personally think the thread topic makes a valid point. As a concept many minor +/- bonuses spread all over progression, the specific perk construction, plethora of item clones in the gearing/itemization, etc. is a little uninspired. As a player I am not impressed. I do not look at such systems and think "these are the type of mechanics I like to see". Subjectively it's not a good concept.

More to the topic, if such a system is the best case scenario then I could see simplifying these systems. Reducing the quantity within them. Streamline the progression, gearing, itemization and various other areas. Place further resources into the story, characters and cinematic elements. Alternatively, retool this extra cost into further testing.
I think that CDPR has to do a serious post-mortem analysis of TW3 vs CP2077 reception (including their Q&A,scheduling that might be covered with internal reorg,change of engine etc..) but focusing in an aspect that I think is overlooked.
Most people, didn´t praise TW3 for any of its mechanics it was praised by story,worldbuilding which is completely subjective (I prefer the CP2077 story and worldbuilding,but thats me)... so this points to one flaw: if you focus only on story/worldbuilding sooner or later you will underdeliver . One can argue, that they underdeliver in CP2077 (not for me, but I'm talking at general perception looking around this and other forums). If you underdeliver in what "covered" your faults in previous games, then you have all the criticisms-specially because CP2077 and TW3 are very similar in game design, maybe contracts were better executed in TW3 but just in how they are delivered/resolved but not how they are designed).

But streamlining mechanics even further-I fail to see, how they can streamline more the mechanics than the TW3... because if somebody is thinking about Dishonored/Prey kind of mechanics I'm not sure you don´t need to move to hub based design for making this work-, well you will go to a pure open-world action-adventure and rely only in your story. So again, if your story fails to convince a significant part of the player base you will be an "uninspired open-world game" in the crowd of games released each year.

The question of course, is whether public will accept a "scale down" of cinematics as a trade-off for deeper RPG mechanics. I think that games as Fallout New Vegas have proven that you can have open-world with deep RPG mechanics (with some invisible walls of course), Outer Worlds in a smaller scale (more related to budget than anything else) also presents deeper RPG mechanics with gunplay focused gameplay and 1st person. You can kill almost all NPCs in both games-so more RPG freedom-, the story will continue because is not relying on cinematics for storytelling.
 
if you focus only on story/worldbuilding sooner or later you will underdeliver .
It's very interesting that you've later brought up Fallout New Vegas and Outer Worlds, when both games heavily rely on storytelling as opposed to gameplay, and a lukewarm reception of latter is largely based on the fact, that the story and writing got significantly worse - because, mechanically, both games are more or less same-ish.
BioWare, for example, had a successful track record of delivering beloved games, that were carried solely by their story and characters. And ironically enough, the decline in reception coincided with incline in gameplay - Mass Effect Andromeda is the most mechanically fluid entry in the series, while also being the most panned and hated.
And "underdeliver" aspect can be applied to any point of focus, really, no matter what you chose to specialize in.
 
It's very interesting that you've later brought up Fallout New Vegas and Outer Worlds, when both games heavily rely on storytelling as opposed to gameplay, and a lukewarm reception of latter is largely based on the fact, that the story and writing got significantly worse - because, mechanically, both games are more or less same-ish.
BioWare, for example, had a successful track record of delivering beloved games, that were carried solely by their story and characters. And ironically enough, the decline in reception coincided with incline in gameplay - Mass Effect Andromeda is the most mechanically fluid entry in the series, while also being the most panned and hated.
And "underdeliver" aspect can be applied to any point of focus, really, no matter what you chose to specialize in.
Maybe the question, is what one understands as "mechanics" in this context? New Vegas gunplay is underwhelming and Outer movement and gunplay is bad-or not very fluent-... Outer Worlds story, suffered from cuts due to budget-I kind of see as signature trademark of those two game directors... Arcanum was the same,Vampire Bloodlines the same,Temple of elemental evil the same... cuts towards the end-.
Still, the mechanics in it allowed me to basically bypass whole sections of combat/stealth in one of the last quests because I had that freedom of character building... another player could have gone full combat,another full stealth... same "global" story, individual player story.


"And "underdeliver" aspect can be applied to any point of focus, really, no matter what you chose to specialize in." completely agree, the point is whether its better to try to sit in the middle instead of just going full in one direction.
 
In my humble opinion, stories, characters, worlds, and the interactions with supporting and main characters within the main and side stories are what make a game stick in the minds of the players.

I got into computer games through pen and paper roleplaying in the 90's. For this reason, stories and characters have always been a central part of my consideration and evaluation of "good" games.

Games like Planescape Torment, Baldur's Gate, Mass Effect, Dragon Age and similar have stuck in my memory to this day. Others shine more through their setting and their world construction, such as Fallout and Elder Scrolls (here especially Skyrim). Mod support also plays a role in this. To name just a few. The list is not complete.

From my point of view, a good, memorable game is built around these aspects and builds on them. Gameplay mechanics should support that. That doesn't mean that they don't require just as much care during development.

First, game designers of story-driven games should ask themselves what story do I want to tell in which world, what characters will it transport, how do I create emotions, how do I pull players into story and world and keep them there etc. and only second, which ones Mechanics support that. Not the other way around.

Aside from technical problems, Cyberpunk does it excellently, even or just despite still having potential. However, I agree that the RPG elements in the form of attributes, skills and professions could have a bigger impact.
 
First, game designers of story-driven games should ask themselves what story do I want to tell in which world, what characters will it transport, how do I create emotions, how do I pull players into story and world and keep them there etc. and only second, which ones Mechanics support that. Not the other way around.

Aside from technical problems, Cyberpunk does it excellently, even or just despite still having potential.
Asserting without demonstrating :)

How does shooting random people in the street support the story and characters of Cyberpunk ?
Because that's the main gameplay of C2077 : killing people, or neutralising them discreetly, in order to gain XP, looting their corpses and surrounding areas to recover equipment, dismantling or reselling some of it, and then starting again. And driving from point A to point B between two killings, between one gig and another (even more so since 1.5). I'm talking about gameplay, the player's actual interactions with the game, what he does by playing the game, not anything else.

The narrative wants us to sympathise with V's plight, but through the gameplay, V comes across more as an overarmed sociopathic murderer without whom the mortality of Night City would drastically decrease. (Of course, that doesn't concern main story nor the players who make a point of not killing anyone, of playing non-lethally, but there is more in the game than that, just as there is more than just the main story (only 15-20h out of 80-100h playthrough) and the quests that are intimately linked to it.) Between two discussions with Judy, my V killed at least a hundred people. :oops:I think C2077 is a good shooter, so I enjoy it.

The main reproach that many, many players make to the game is that its gameplay mechanics are too far from the story. As if there were two games in one.
For example, when the game was first released, many players complained that there was too much loot, even during the important parts of the story. This was detrimental to both the immersion and the story. CDPR even had to reduce the number of lootable containers in one of the last updates. And yet, a significant part of the gameplay still consists of activating the scanner to find the lootable containers and corpses. How do these kinds of mechanics support the story and the characters and create emotions ?

One could very well consider that for "Cyberpunk to do it excellently", it would have needed a Dontnod-like game. In other words, a much more narrative game, not an action shooter with loot everywhere and some driving. In fact, if the starting point of all "story-driven" or not games that remain in the minds of players were to be the story, the characters and the world, and the gameplay were to support only that, then all games would be purely narrative games, with very poor gameplay. But what defines the video game above all as a medium apart from others is not the dramaturgy and staging, which come from theatre, literature, cinema, etc., but the gameplay.
 
Last edited:
But what defines the video game above all as a medium apart from others is not the dramaturgy and staging, which come from theatre, literature, cinema, etc., but the gameplay.
That´s right. But they will excel at bringing these together. And of course these are my personal wishes for a good game and not universally applicable.

Asserting without demonstrating
Yup. However, I am not obliged to do so. After all, it's not academic work that has to live up to certain principles. That's not my intention either.

But your additions or examples describe it quite well.
 
Top Bottom