Gameplay - depth vs complexity vs fun

[Poet_and_Gentleman.598]

By playing according to the situation that is given to me. You are forgetting that in an RPG the build you build goes on progresing for the whole game and usually consist of much more elements than combat to take care of. Strategy games tend to be mission based with new "start" every mission where you are usually given a vague explanation on what's to come. Grand strategies and 4X's aside since you named Start Craft 2 specifically.

There's no comparison. The games (an RTS like Starcraft and a turnbased RPG) play too differently.

Length is not really relevant to the discussion because in Starcraft, your early choices will certainly follow you until the end of the particular match (which would be equivalent to an RPG game).

What difference is there between combat and non-combat builds? Starcraft build orders are technically non-combat. You could for example replace Roaches mentionned in the article with oranges or apples or whatnot. Both are about finding the best way to have the highest amount of X in the least amount of time.

Even TB has to respect universal concepts like concentration of force, chokepoints,etc.

Everyone is of crouse free to dig into shit like this to break the system, but it very rarely results in anything positive.

For the people who cannot adapt to the new strategies (in addition to having the reflexes of a banana), I suppose this is the case.

But it is a different experience by intent, and should not be an issue.

Again, it depends in which FPS circles you hang in and which game you are playing.The baseline reflexes to play them can be very low if you are smart about it. It truly is more about the rules of the game rather then RT itself.

I cite ArmA often because it is the best example
http://www.pcgamer.com/2013/04/25/arma-3-community-guide-explains-teamwork-tactics/

Then there's this:
http://ttp3.dslyecxi.com/8_tactics.php

I haven't played a lot of multiplayer games since high school (for ArmA, the training videos of various clans are a tad too formal and roleplay-ey to my liking), but they do seem to get strategic concepts. I would imagine to coordinate big clans would also require quite a bit of strategy.

WWII Online also had similar dynamics and it had a much larger map then ArmA. Whether or not you needed reflexes was truly up to how you went about it. If you were doing urban combat or house clearing, then yes, but there were many times where I took a Bren machinegun, and simply waited in ambush in a forest.
You know what they say? In a perfect ambush, no one gets out alive. Oftentimes there was little the enemy could have done to stop me before I had killed quite a few krauts.In that game, cleverness outwitted reflexes and it was far more effective then simply going mano a mano from house to house. That is good design.

Face of Mankind had very poor combat mechanics but also had command and control.

The old R6 had an elaborate planning stage.

Of course you do. I've never implied that RTS' (or FPS') play by themselves and require nothing from the player.

Just like you don't think about a lot of other possible effects and situational afflictions (and very often, they don't exist or matter because the player has no time to "think about them").

No the truth is you DO have the time to think about them. You do it before you actually enter any match.

It's simply that the situation usually have a best counter.

Even in TB. In Jagged Alliance, I play the same way I do in FPS.

 

[Suhiira]

When you have an RPG that's allegedly supposed to be pretty multifaceted, it is my opinion that you do not want a heavy combat system that would overwhelm the non-combat features. It of course needs to be functional and fun in what it tries to achieve, even ambitious, but it - imo - it doesn't need to reach for the sky and try to compete with games specifically built for combat.

I agree, but the problem is most folks seem to treat RPGs as combat games and the RPG elements as a "flavor", side-line, or even distraction from the "main" gameplay - combat; rather then the other way around.

 

[Sardukhar]

No the truth is you DO have the time to think about them. You do it before you actually enter any match.

Well. You do if you're thinking at all at all. Lots of us just hop in and hope for the best. To be fair, poet, mindless FPS is prettttttty common. And part of the charm. Just not seen at medium to high level play very often.

I don't know who said it or when in this discussion, but I would like to say as a not-terrible Counterstrike player once, (had a 2:1 ratio over hundreds of hours played), suppressing fire absolutely works in games where you die in a hit or two AND have to wait the rest of the match to play again. Charging into enemy fire is duuuumb.

Unless it's die or the bomb goes off. Then it's kamikaze of glory!

Rainbow Six Siege, baby. Are we excited? Yes we are.

Edit: I'd really like to see CP2077 have a heavy, heavy non-combat gameplay side. I won't say no combat, because it's the Dark future, but I'd like to see gameplay elements that mean combat can be left to minions while you do something else.

 

[Suhiira]

I've looked at Arma-3 quite a bit and REALLY want to try it.
Trouble is there's just no way to get a decent feel for the amount of "twitch" needed to play a game from watching game play vids. And I'm afraid to once again waste money on yet another FPS game I can't play.

 

[JackieEstacado]

Please CD Projekt, do whatever you want, but don't make this a turn based game, nor a FPS.
Your games are always original, so keep this in line with your tradition.
I trust you and I know that this will be one hell of a game.

 

[Poet_and_Gentleman.598]

I've looked at Arma-3 quite a bit and REALLY want to try it.
Trouble is there's just no way to get a decent feel for the amount of "twitch" needed to play a game from watching game play vids. And I'm afraid to once again waste money on yet another FPS game I can't play.

Arma 2 periodically goes on 2 or 3 $ sales on steam. If you want to take a peek at the twitch requirements without dipping into the piggy bank, that could be a good compromise for the price of a big mac. ArmA 2 was essentially the same as Operation Flashpoint (ArmA's 10 years old spiritual predecessor) /w updated graphics. ArmA 3 is most likely pretty much the same as ArmA 2.

 

[Sardukhar]

Arma 2 periodically goes on 2 or 3 $ sales on steam. If you want to take a peek at the twitch requirements without dipping into the piggy bank, that could be a good compromise for the price of a big mac. ArmA 2 was essentially the same as Operation Flashpoint (ArmA's 10 years old spiritual predecessor) /w updated graphics. ArmA 3 is most likely pretty much the same as ArmA 2.

I found OpFlash to be a lot smoother ride and playstyle than ArmA 2. Maybe it was the introduction curve or pre-expansion simpler times (? if any), but I found my OpFlash playing to be much more natural.

Maybe the inventory wasn't just crap? I don't usually complain much about the loot-storage system, but ArmA 2 was just so bad.

 

[kofeiiniturpa]

Games like RPGs or open world games benefit from an optional lack of consequence. Some of the best times to be had in games like these are when you save and decide you've finished playing the "normal" game for the day. Sure, there is a trade-off. You do lose something from the experience when you're not perpetually in story-mode or when not all of your actions have consequences (saving and reloading), but I like to think you gain something as well - a more unique and personal experience of the game. What is the purpose of an open-world sandbox game if it only serves as a backdrop?

I'm simply curious, but do you have any first impression opinions of The Witcher 3?

I like my RPG's to provide the reasons to go forward, and the consequences for both keeping in and striving off the path. There obviously needs to be freedom to go about, explore and do sidestuff; bu there should always be this tingle in the background that this is what I am building my character for, this is the job of the role I am given, striving too far may and will have consequences. If sideattractions and simulation take the precedence and drown the point, the experience becomes very disjointed.

On the outside Witcher 3 looks fine, but I have some reservations (mostly on the mechanical side).

What difference is there between combat and non-combat builds?

Ok. This is where I give up.

Too wide a gap between points of view, it almost feels as if we're talking cross about completely different things without realizing it.

The approach from player (physcal and mental) is very, very different between online shooters, RTS' and TB games -- not because they'd always require different tactical solution, but because they always play differently. I do not see much parallels.

I agree, but the problem is most folks seem to treat RPGs as combat games and the RPG elements as a "flavor", side-line, or even distraction from the "main" gameplay - combat; rather then the other way around.

That's true. And it's too bad.


-------

On the topic of combat. I obviously do not want the it to be that of a shooter; first nor third person.

I liked the Arma games, and I like a good shooter every once in a couple of years, but I like and play those sorts of games for very different reasons than I play and like RPG's.

 

[Sardukhar]

On the topic of combat. I obviously do not want the it to be that of a shooter; first nor third person.

I liked the Arma games, and I like a good shooter every once in a couple of years, but I like and play those sorts of games for very different reasons than I play and like RPG's.

Okay, fair enough.

The problem is, which you may well know, that Cyberpunk the genre and Cyberpunk 2020 the game are very combat-thick. Being a modern game, that almost always means shooting.

Friday Night Firefight is such an important part of CP2020 it has it's own name and we refer to it as FNFF, as opposed to, say, Vampire or Dark Heresy where it's just, "the combat section".

R.Tal did their best to take real life life figures and conversations with SWAT guys, tactical guys, serious shoot learning and turn it into a dangerous but fun combat system. Because sooner or later, you're going to have to fight. And although the game is rife with monswords and grapplefists, it's really hard to beat a .477 slug to the face.

So it's going to have a lot of shooter elements. I'd just about guarantee it. The REDS are CP2020 players, they know FNFF and they know how present shoot combat is.

My hope, and I'd encourage you and others to encourage them, is that there will be a whole method of playing the game where you have to engage in little if any shooter-mechanics yourself, either through stealth or bribery or minions. That way, when the hammer drops, you can watch the shooter-action from your AV-9.


...you Corporate/Rocker/Fixer/Runner bastard, you. If you people didn't pay so well, I'd...

 

[Harthwain]

Even TB has to respect universal concepts like concentration of force, chokepoints,etc.

So? I saw people concentrating their forces that they allowed their flanks to weaken. It took a few units to create a breach and encircle almost the entire army, leaving men at risk of being out of supply. It caused the whole offensive to halt, because half of the units has to go back, to regain control over supply lines and the rest couldn't go further without the risk of being encircled by now-superior enemy forces.

What difference is there between combat and non-combat builds?

Non-combat builds won't help you in combat? Combat builds won't help you outside combat?

Again, it depends in which FPS circles you hang in and which game you are playing.The baseline reflexes to play them can be very low if you are smart about it. It truly is more about the rules of the game rather then RT itself.

I cite ArmA often because it is the best example
http://www.pcgamer.com/2013/04/25/arma-3-community-guide-explains-teamwork-tactics/

Then there's this:
http://ttp3.dslyecxi.com/8_tactics.php

I haven't played a lot of multiplayer games since high school (for ArmA, the training videos of various clans are a tad too formal and roleplay-ey to my liking), but they do seem to get strategic concepts. I would imagine to coordinate big clans would also require quite a bit of strategy.

Here is a funny observation - I read a lot on tactics and the games where I saw them being used were Left 4 Dead 1 and 2. It's a game where you fight basically melee-oriented opponents. It was interesting, but also a sad realization. Not that tactics are completely useless in other FPS games (some are universal), but you can't really change spot too often when there is only so much cover left or your team ain't thinking with tactics in mind.

No the truth is you DO have the time to think about them. You do it before you actually enter any match.

It's simply that the situation usually have a best counter.

Even in TB. In Jagged Alliance, I play the same way I do in FPS.

You can't know the situation before entering a match and there is only so much you can do without a team in regards to tactics. In Jagged Alliance you're not alone and it's TB. I played Frozen Synapse by tactics, because it was basically a TB game with FPS rules implemented into it and "run & gun" was a death sentence (game had turns done in WEGO system). More so than in any FPS game where reflexes can save you. In essence, it's much easier to make a TB game that relfect tactics better than action game doing so. I am looking forward CDPR creating singleplayer game that makes you utilize tactics the same way L4D did it.

 

[kofeiiniturpa]

Okay, fair enough.

The problem is, which you may well know, that Cyberpunk the genre and Cyberpunk 2020 the game are very combat-thick. Being a modern game, that almost always means shooting.

Yeah, about that..... Firstly I don't think the game needs to be anymore combat thick (For the player - the world might have lots of conflicts all around) than how much the player seeks out for conflict or how careless he is in trying to avoid it. Combat is where you find it, or where it is absolutely the only way to go (either by nature - eg. an encounter with a cyberpsycho that just happens to target the player; or the circumstances at hand - eg. result of your past/current actions). A stealth/diplomat character should be a viable way to play; not easy, mind you, but viable and rewarding just as the combat character.

And secondly... Even so, that (being combat heavy) says nothing about gameplay and related mechanics, just that there will be lots of combat.

I think it'll be a waste of a good franchise and a terrible shame, if they go with this concept of "Michael Bay's Cyberpunk 2077" (yeah, that's an exaggeration, but by the sound of things, not much) of 3.2 second explosion around every corner, and otherwise openly fellate the mainstream audiences with flashy graphics, big booms and "not-too-complex" easy to swallow and prechewed action gameplay you get from every other title, when they have all the makings of something really unique here. Where this likely ends up, going this way, is a nice scifi game that looks really good, has it's fanbase, and likely sells pretty well, but ultimately does nothing to stand out from the grey mass on modern cRPG's (or action games).

I think there should be a bit more ambition and ingenuity in creating the gameplay (and combat) than going with the tried and through methods of "action shooting all around" you get from every game these days. And boy do I know that's not a popular opinion to have here (or anywhere these days, really). I've been arguing this shit since the game was announced. :hrhr: I don't mind that, people like what they like and I'm not any more right with my ideals than others are with theirs, but sometimes I wonder do people think at all out of the box and simply take everything at face value (in a number of places) -- that if there is to be combat that is to be dangerous and relatively fast, like FNFF, it must automatically mean hectic shooter gameplay like this but with only 1-10 HP (and coincidentally, while that is more of a joke and aside from that I actually like that game for what it does, that is actually the image I get for the combat from reading here, much more so than of those tactical shooters that are usually much slower than the implied FNFF).

I keep standing my ground. If people want fast paced shooter gameplay, then they do. I don't (and I've tried to explain some alternatives in the past, you probably remember). I'll see where this thing is going and once the info strats rolling out, if it doesn't look promising to me... well, that's that.

My hope, and I'd encourage you and others to encourage them, is that there will be a whole method of playing the game where you have to engage in little if any shooter-mechanics yourself, either through stealth or bribery or minions. That way, when the hammer drops, you can watch the shooter-action from your AV-9.

Yeah. That'd be nice as an option (really).

But, see, I'm not opposed to combat being part of the game. In that I would always want to avoid it. I want there to be combat where it is called for. I just want the combat design to be thoughtful and fun to me; in an RPG sort of way. And I am all compromises, since that's pretty much all I can get (the game not being turnbased).

 

[Maelcom404]

You'll be forced to fight in a way or another, it's supposed to be a dark future with bums wanting to loot you when you walk outside of your comfort zone.
If it's not shooting, at least throwing some kicks.

Anyway, 2:50.

"Combat mecanics are obviously very important, and we CERTAINLY want to avoid as much as possible the situation where your combat capabilities are that much dependent on the stats, it's about your own skills"

3:25
"There will definitaly have combats."

So, no point&click for you guys.
No shooter too thought, but a real time firefight, that's 99% sure.

Plus, since it'll be done on The Witcher 3 engine, and The Witcher has real time combat, you can be sure it'll be real time.
They're not going to reinvent the wheel, otherwise they'd do a whole new engine only for Cyberpunk.
And CDPR aren't different from every game publisher around, every game, as much as their idea are good, are always in the same vein from what they've done before.
Just play The Witcher 2 (I've done it recently, and well it's great!, thanks Dragon ^^), add guns and cybernetics in a dystopian open world sandbox, and you'll have Cyberpunk 2077.

Also, about Gameplay stuff, I'd love to have the Trauma team to be back.

 

[Harthwain]

Plus, since it'll be done on The Witcher 3 engine, and The Witcher has real time combat, you can be sure it'll be real time.
They're not going to reinvent the wheel, otherwise they'd do a whole new engine only for Cyberpunk. And CDPR aren't different from every game publisher around, every game, as much as their idea are good, are always in the same vein from what they've done before. Just play The Witcher 2 (I've done it recently, and well it's great!, thanks Dragon ^^), add guns and cybernetics in a dystopian open world sandbox, and you'll have Cyberpunk 2077.

That's what worries me. I expect of them to go further than that. In my mind they didn't go with potential of sword combat far enough and I am afraid they might not go this time as well. The fact they're using the same engine only reinforces my concern.

You'll be forced to fight in a way or another, it's supposed to be a dark future with bums wanting to loot you when you walk outside of your comfort zone.

Run and hide should be valid options. Fight is the last resort, because combat is deadly. I'd like to be able to use improvised weapons, but I am not going to pick up a fight when I can avoid one.

 

[kofeiiniturpa]

"Combat mecanics are obviously very important, and we CERTAINLY want to avoid as much as possible the situation where your combat capabilities are that much dependent on the stats, it's about your own skills"

That's really too bad. I was hoping there'd be more to this game than that, regarding combat.

Shame.

How it'll end up as a whole, I don't know, but the implression I have now is that it'll be a "nice" game with a lot of conventional shitty combat I mostly only want to "get over with" so that I can get to the better stuff in between.

Disappointing; but what can one do.

 

[Suhiira]

"Combat mecanics are obviously very important, and we CERTAINLY want to avoid as much as possible the situation where your combat capabilities are that much dependent on the stats, it's about your own skills"

That's really too bad. I was hoping there'd be more to this game than that, regarding combat.

Shame.

This worries me a LOT too.
That statement makes it seem they're going to stress "shooter" over "RPG" (at least with the combat aspects of the game).

 

[vongo.859]

I still don't really follow how non-stat based combat (I think it would be foolish to think stats wouldn't at least influence combat) would be such a bad thing.

My understanding of the video is simply that combat will not be dependent on the chance of dice rolls. I see that only as a good thing.

I like my RPG's to provide the reasons to go forward, and the consequences for both keeping in and striving off the path. There obviously needs to be freedom to go about, explore and do sidestuff; bu there should always be this tingle in the background that this is what I am building my character for, this is the job of the role I am given, striving too far may and will have consequences. If sideattractions and simulation take the precedence and drown the point, the experience becomes very disjointed.

On the outside Witcher 3 looks fine, but I have some reservations (mostly on the mechanical side).

But, that's the purpose of the open world RPG. The reasons to do anything are entirely dependent on the individual. In a PnP RPG the player's character is influenced by the setting and events that surround them, but ultimately every choice that player makes is theirs. That freedom of choice should be no different on any format.

If I misunderstood that and you meant you'd rather not see the game loaded down with gimmicks over substance, than I'm completely with you there.

 

[Maelcom404]

I think your gun's stat will play the major role (on the opposite, your "fighting" stats will play a huge roll when hand-to-hand), but your weapong skills will probably play their role about jamming and recoil IMO, everything else is still to be explained by CDPR... In 6mouth when The Witcher 3 will be released, since they're not allowed to talk about it yet :/

But well, honnestly except real time and "you're the one aiming", it's still blurry.
Maybe they try to draw a line between Cyberpunk and The Witcher, so people don't compare both that much, I don't know.
I don't see them doing a "straight shooter", but they can turn it in something reallistic and all.
Time will tell.

But, that's the purpose of the open world RPG. The reasons to do anything are entirely dependent on the individual. In a PnP RPG the player's character is influenced by the setting and events that surround them, but ultimately every choice that player makes is theirs. That freedom of choice should be no different on any format.

Agree, being able to have lot of freedom and building whatever character you want doesn't mean it's gonna be pointless. They need to find a way to create variety and a lot of variable to achieve it.
Like a GM has to keep his story open enought so his players have freedom but don't screw with his settings and story.

 

[227]

I'm also somewhat worried by the shooter-over-stats mentality, though at least that'd make betraying cooperating with you all in multiplayer a little easier.

everything else is still to be explained by CDPR... In 6mouth when The Witcher 3 will be released, since they're not allowed to talk about it yet :/

Psh, it's their game. They could talk if they wanted to. They just don't want to because crushing our hopes and dreams through deafening silence is their favorite hobby. Not that I'm bitter.

What we need to do is convince Gregski to wear a wire and get some of the employees drunk enough to start telling us things. Time for him to dust off the old ninja robes.

 

[Maelcom404]

Psh, it's their game. They could talk if they wanted to. They just don't want to because crushing our hopes and dreams through deafening silence is their favorite hobby. Not that I'm bitter.

What we need to do is convince Gregski to wear a wire and get some of the employees drunk enough to start telling us things. Time for him to dust off the old ninja robes.

Well, that would actualy be a cool thing, having just someone from CDPR explaning "exactly" what they have in mind with Cyberpunk 2077.
No need of concept, or top secret idea, but just how they "see" the whole game looking like.
They said "This game will not be for everyone", now it would be interesting to know "who" those "everyone" are.
Just to know what to expect, otherwise we'll keep on the internet fight for a while.

We're sure it's gonna be a RPG, not a "FPS shooter", but some more informations would be cool.
How are the combat mecanics gonna be handled? What to expect about the main "game", if the story is "undertone" as they said in the interview, will roles be there, etc...

 

[Garrison72]

CDPR has been really vague about TW3. They must have a monster of an NDA for everyone, because we mostly hear the same stuff. I don't put much stock into anything they say about '77 when it's so far out from release and so much can change. I'm pretty sure that character skill over stats statement just means they're making an action RPG and not a traditional turn based one.