I think at the bottom of this is the fact that lot of people wanted the entire game to be what they've seen in the montage. Low-level jobs, 2 mercs rising through the ranks, getting rich and famous... It would absolutely ruin the pacing of the story, but something tells me that the story isn't really all that important to those people.
- Status
Maybe like Tony M. who arrived as unknown and finished on the top !
And yeah, also dead alone in a pool...
They absolutely would not.
CP2077 is what it is. The consistent FPP environment is a massive, deliberate, part of the game design. If you don't like it, no problem, but please don't insist that it's 'wrong' or 'bad'. It's rather ridiculous to carry on arguing that CDPR made some huge mistake. You can't force every game to follow the design style that you personally prefer. Their game, their rules!
Yes it seems to be behind the quite extreme split in the way the game has been received. If you wanted a do anything you want game that happens to have a story, you're probably not going to be happy. If you wanted a story game that happens to have some doing what you want, you're probably going to be more amenable to it.
I can even tell what the justificiation for including normal cinematics in the expansion will be: "it's a different character so it's not the same. It worked for V to be always FPP, obviously it won't work for B. It's a different design choice."
I'm not entirely sure what this thread is about. I know what it started with, but it has morphed.
If we're back to 1st vs 3rd person, that ship has sailed, returned, and then sailed out again. It is what it is. As to the difficulty of presentation, I don't see why 1st person would be any easier or harder than 3rd person. The biggest problem with the perspective in the game isn't that it's mostly locked to 1st person. The problem is that 1st person was done without taking the time to properly implement a skeletal structure for 3rd person, which is what causes shadows to be screwed up, among other things.
Or is it about cut-scenes? Those are what they are. It looks like CDPR tried to implement them in a way that remained immersive. Sometimes that succeeded, sometimes not. But I like the idea of them trying it.
Or is it about the vignette between the character's background path introduction, and the first mission with Jackie, who is suddenly your best friend, with no context for it except the Corpo path? I understand the story telling framework that they're trying to sell. However, the implementation smacks of "we ran out of time". The prologue is long enough that Jackie could have been part of some of those prologue side missions, the friendship with the character could have evolved organically in that manner (and I still think that was the original intent), and then the heist trauma could have been more salient (again, like I suspect it was originally intended to be). For me, the gold standard in emotional identification with a character who gets lost somewhere along the way is Gears of War 3, with Dom.
If we're back to 1st vs 3rd person, that ship has sailed, returned, and then sailed out again. It is what it is. As to the difficulty of presentation, I don't see why 1st person would be any easier or harder than 3rd person. The biggest problem with the perspective in the game isn't that it's mostly locked to 1st person. The problem is that 1st person was done without taking the time to properly implement a skeletal structure for 3rd person, which is what causes shadows to be screwed up, among other things.
Or is it about cut-scenes? Those are what they are. It looks like CDPR tried to implement them in a way that remained immersive. Sometimes that succeeded, sometimes not. But I like the idea of them trying it.
Or is it about the vignette between the character's background path introduction, and the first mission with Jackie, who is suddenly your best friend, with no context for it except the Corpo path? I understand the story telling framework that they're trying to sell. However, the implementation smacks of "we ran out of time". The prologue is long enough that Jackie could have been part of some of those prologue side missions, the friendship with the character could have evolved organically in that manner (and I still think that was the original intent), and then the heist trauma could have been more salient (again, like I suspect it was originally intended to be). For me, the gold standard in emotional identification with a character who gets lost somewhere along the way is Gears of War 3, with Dom.
It sure has.
There were some interesting discussions about FPP storytelling, but unsurprisingly it has changed into yet another railing at why-not TPP?
Well, we've had far more than enough of those. There will not be Third Person in 2077. This ship has not only sailed, I am sinking it.
Feel free to discuss what CDPR did with FPP cutscenes and storytelling, but leave off the "I want TPP" and "TPP is better!" posts.
Otherwise, locked.
Yeah, it can't work for everybody
But they experiment something "new" (for me at least). For make an analogy, it's a little bit like Apple and the first iPhone. They haven't reinvented the phone, nor the cell phone, nor the touchscreen, nor the music player, nor the camera, but putting all together end with something quite new and never did before.
I completely disagree with the developers.
1:] The medium of storytelling is different
The medium of video games means that the story does not have to move along at any consistent pace because you are more focused on becoming PART of the story. You are likely to play a video game for multiple days or weeks so it will be at a different pace than a movie, television show, or even book.
2:] The big appeal is immersing yourself in the world
The biggest part of Cyberpunk 2077 is that it is about becoming V rather than trying to tell a specific story. The developers seem very enamored of the whole "Dying and becoming Johnny Silverhand" but the story is much-much bigger. You are meant to be involved in a lot more plots and story arcs.
If you were to expand the Jackie/V part to the story that would just mean more immersing in Night City, Victor, Misty, and other elements.
3:] The first part of the game is a lot more popular than the developers anticipated
The Watson part of the story is what a lot of fans thought was the best part of the game. It is being an Edgerunner for the money and the kind of attitude that justifies a lot of the doing merc work that you do across the entirety of the game. No Ludonarrative Dissonance. Having more of it wouldn't have been a problem.
4:] It's not just Jackie
It's Jackie, Vic, Misty, Mama Welles, and other characters that are important.
1:] The medium of storytelling is different
The medium of video games means that the story does not have to move along at any consistent pace because you are more focused on becoming PART of the story. You are likely to play a video game for multiple days or weeks so it will be at a different pace than a movie, television show, or even book.
2:] The big appeal is immersing yourself in the world
The biggest part of Cyberpunk 2077 is that it is about becoming V rather than trying to tell a specific story. The developers seem very enamored of the whole "Dying and becoming Johnny Silverhand" but the story is much-much bigger. You are meant to be involved in a lot more plots and story arcs.
If you were to expand the Jackie/V part to the story that would just mean more immersing in Night City, Victor, Misty, and other elements.
3:] The first part of the game is a lot more popular than the developers anticipated
The Watson part of the story is what a lot of fans thought was the best part of the game. It is being an Edgerunner for the money and the kind of attitude that justifies a lot of the doing merc work that you do across the entirety of the game. No Ludonarrative Dissonance. Having more of it wouldn't have been a problem.
4:] It's not just Jackie
It's Jackie, Vic, Misty, Mama Welles, and other characters that are important.
Problems with shadow is visible proof that game was never meant to be TPP.
You don't need whole context of relationship between two characters to move on with story. Just like in LotR, you don't know whole story of Bilbo even when he is important for plot. Relationship betwee Frodo and Bilbo isn't even really that developed in 1 act. Not everyone read all Tolkien's books before watching movie. Prologue is prologue, it can't be too long, same with Act 1. That was CDPR's choice to tell story, it could be done better, that's for sure, but there's plenty of other shortcuts in story nobody really cares.
Cut between prologue and 1 act was unavoidable to make story and characters work, but I will elaborate later about it.
While true this is somewhat subjective. Some people might believe fewer interruptions in the gameplay is better. Others might be perfectly content with periodic interruptions. The same could be said for story progression.
I think the devs made it clear in that video they made a design decision to keep things moving. I don't think any of them were attempting to say they had to do so either. They did so because it fit what they were aiming toward.
Hmm, that's debatable. Well, the game attempting to make the player become V is pretty clear. It's debatable whether it was intended to be more important vs telling a specific story though.
I'd consider the immersion angle questionable in general though. Immersion is based as much on player reception as developer design goals. I was never... not immersed in TW3 or old isometric RPG's from back in the day. Even though those games were handled very differently in many respects. Ultimately my immersion is based on the content pulling me into it. Do I find it interesting? If the answer is yes consider me immersed.
Hmm, you can probably count me among them. I'll leave it at that to avoid steering the thread elsewhere though. The universe collapsing in on itself would be bad
.As a starting point, you're 100% right. I don't quite see eye to eye with this for Jackie though. Simply because his character was killed off right when he was starting to grow on me. Sticking with the LOTR analogy, he could have been Sam instead of Bilbo.
This is what I was getting at when calling it a self-inflicted problem by the way. If a character like Jackie had a greater and/or longer presence in the narrative of the game there is no need to rush to establish his connection to V. Those connections could have been developed through gameplay within the narrative.
My favorite example of bad fpp cutscene is break up with Kerry in star ending.
Your favorite ? Because there are many ?
But here, in my opinion, it's also intended at the beginning... V just wait to Kerry get out the car for talk because V don't want to talk to him by the window... At risk to repeat myself, body language. And Kerry seem to also turn around to not staying right in front of V. A little bit like when Kerry look the ground when speaking... Or look at V from the side (a shifty look).
I can't see how TPP would be better here... but it's just my opinion
Last edited:
Sticking to LOTR analogy: Viktor is Sam, so there's no need for Jackie to take his part
I wanted to make longer posts, but main problem with Jackie is: story of two merceneries making career could be placed in ancient Rome, medieval London, or revolutionary Paris. Story like this doesn't need cyberpunk city. Main story of game revolves around cyberpunkish themes.
6 month cut is actually good for both characters, because you don't have weird character progress like in, for example GTA V, where Franicis needs literally few missions to progress as character from some petty street level thug to masterminda criminal. No matter what (additional missions to fill space between prologue and act I - for whatever reason) some 'let's speed up things" sequence, cutscene would take place in Cyberpunk, otherwise character progress and authencity will suffer. It's unsolveable problem, if you can't accept story is not really about Jackie/V duo.
Last edited:
Sticking to LOTR analogy: Viktor is Sam, so there's no need for Jackie to take his part
I wanted to make longer posts, but main problem with Jackie is: story of two merceneries making career could be placed in ancient Rome, medieval London, or revolutionary Paris. Story like this doesn't need cyberpunk city. Main story of game revolves around cyberpunkish themes.
As a fan of Cyberpunk 2020, I should note the premise of the game is you are a mercenary who performs crimes for money. Its a bit like playing in the Witcher's world and wondering why there's so much monster hunting for money.
Indeed, I wonder if the lack of familiarity with the game was an issue. I feel like the trailers don't ever mention you're a professional killer and street samurai for hire.
Maybe that would have gotten rid of the people who assumed there'd be entire game stories about being a corpo.
First person view doesn't make you feel like the character, as you don't see your character. I felt more like Geralt of Rivia because I am conditioned to watch a character and put myself in his shoes. That is why movies aren't shot first person as it creates a huge disconnect. Playing Doom or Wolfenstein never made me feel like the character, I was getting a first person view, just like in a racing game, and I didn't feel emotional. If CDPR wanted to evoke that it failed gloriously. That is fine but it makes, regarding the emotional impact of the story, the game a failed experiment for me.
I think Far Cry 6 did it best with 1st person gameplay and 3rd person cutscenes. I HATE 3rd person action and think its almost a dumpsterfire but cutscenes should never be 1st person.
But that's exactly how you earn money in CP2077. You're not an accountant, or bartender or janitor. You're still doing mercenary job, it's just that the main story is not about it. And for a good reason. It's remarkably bland premise for main story.
Likewise, you're earning money by doing witcher contracts, but the main story of any witcher game isn't about hunting monsters. It's about recovering stolen witchers' secrets. It's about catching the Kingslayer and recovering memories. It's about finding and protecting your adoptive daughter.
This is how V's role in the gameworld is described:
"You play as V, a mercenary outlaw going after a one-of-a-kind implant that is the key to immortality."
You can't buy the game and not read this.
Doubt it, Nothing that CDPR have been saying was feeding this fantasy.
I still remember the discussion about Jackie's death shown in the trailer and people asking: "But, we can prevent this, right?" and someone answering (with 100% conviction): "Why, yes! It is an RPG, after all. In some playthrough he'll live, in other, he'll die, in some, he'll be your enemy, in some other, you won't even meet him, etc...".
Level of delusion that was being spread by hyped fans and clickbaity youtubers was insane.My point is, people who came to expect the entire corpo playthrough to revolve around doing corpoo stuff didn't get this (mis)information from CDPR, anyway.
Last edited by a moderator:
- Status