Definitely not. Even if characters, story and setting should definitely remain the focus, the additional gameplay elements make the whole thing complete and also ensure replayability.
Yeah, that's true, reducing the number of levels and making each attribute and perk level up more significant might have helped a bit.
Apart from Cyberware, the progression system really resembles looter shooters the most. I wonder if that was the original intent of developers? Maybe the developers felt they had to implement a system like that becuase looter shooters like Destiny and Borderlands are popular and they want to appeal to that audience, even if it might not really fit to their game? Or it's the way it is because that's the progression system that was planned for the multiplayer mode? Or maybe they thought that's how they could overcome the tension between shooter gameplay (governed by skills) and traditional RPG gameplay (governed by statistics).
Or maybe they planned something different, something more ambitious, but didn't manage to get it to work well, at least not until release? And what we ended up with is just a pretty barebones system? At least I'd say it feels a bit unfinished and imblanced in many ways.
Finally someone that gets it. It felt like I was speaking mandarin.
In short, CDPR substitutes classic rpg progression through stats/perks/etc for vertical gear progression. Which is even worse since, unlike looters, there is extremely shallow variety of gear attributes: so it's just increase damage, increase damage, increase damage and +5% to x, increase damage, etc.
And when they playtest and realize this gets out of control, they do two things:
- level scale enemies and calculate damage based on relative difference to player level
- nerf perks&weapon mods, add restrictions to what you can equip so player doesn't get powerful gear early
This also ruins progression, exploration and immersion, and consequently economy ( since you're constantly looting weapons which constantly increases in value, as it scales)
And since they're so poor at balancing, player overlevels enemies eventually..so then they even more upscale enemies (like in TES Oblivion)..which means we're back to square 1, and the game with scaling ( unless you want completely broken difficulty) plays more like action game with flat difficulty, but with plenty of broken abilities and restrictions.
I can't believe I'm saying it, but I think Bethesda, or even Bioware, had far better approach with character/gear progression, with Fallout / Mass Effect.
Perks would give at least 20-25% per rank, and each would would give additional benefit.
No vertical progression on gear, but more powerful perks. Instead, weapons and armor would have pro&cons, and you could further customize it.
And same goes for cyberware.
For example: we all know how broken Sandevistan is. You buy common, then rare, then epic, and finally legendary, all of which increases duration and effect...until you just steamroll through enemies and kill everyone with no difficulty before it expires. It very quickly becomes boring.
Like in Witcher, entire "difficulty" comes down to Geralt/V's level being in same proximity of enemies, and then just mindlessly using a few broken, OP abilities, with no real challenge.
Wouldn't it be more interesting if there were different variants, each with advantages and disadvantages depending on type of enemy?
Very short duration, but strongest effect - great against very fast enemies like Tyger Claws
Longer duration, but weak effect - more useful against slow enemies like Animals
Medium duration and effect, but increases movement speed - useful for fast get-aways and traversal
This would indirectly make economy better ( as player has need of greater variety of gear instead of constantly selling it), and encounters/gameplay more engaging and tactical ( instead of just player versus enemy level/damage, you would use different load outs for different types of enemies and encounters).
And world would be much more open to explore with no level restrictions.
It just..makes absolutely no sense what they are doing. They force something in the game that has no sensible reason to be there, make a complete mess of everything, and then instead of realizing what's causing it and directly fixing it..they spend two years trying to come up with workarounds that make an even bigger mess without adressing the cause of the problem.
I didn't expect you'd agree. Nor do I have any interest in attempting to change your mind. After all, you started this thread. I gave my take on it, that's all.
It is a highly subjective question to begin with. There isn't a right or wrong answer here. Ultimately, the game is or isn't for you. In your case, it sounds like it isn't and there is nothing wrong with that. For me, the game is good. Don't get me wrong, I don't think it's perfect but I don't think it's anywhere near the mess you make it out to be.
Besides, it wouldn't have bothered me if when creating the character, in addition to the life path, we had to choose a "class".
Like Netrunner, Solo, Techie, Ninja with some "mixed/mid classes".
And only Netrunners can perform QH, only Solos can install Gorilla arms, only Ninjas can install Sandevistan/Mantis Blades. And the mixed classes can peform both but at "lower" level (If you're not a Netrunner, impossible to install a Cyberdeck, so impossible to hack anything).
But I think CDPR decided to go without, because the majority of players (those who don't even finished the game, about 75%) don't replay the game again and can enjoy/try almost everything in one run.
(I wonder how many players have played/tried every classes in Mass Effect like Adepte, Soldier, Engineer,...)
@LeKill3rFou
Maybe... besides this, these very classical old school RPG-Systems (like D&D, Pathfinder) with classes are a little outdated and more for friends of build optimization and number crunching. But... only my humble opinion.
I prefere more modern systems with free path and skill choice.
Maybe... besides this, these very classical old school RPG-Systems (like D&D, Pathfinder) with classes are a little outdated and more for friends of build optimization and number crunching. But... only my humble opinion.
I prefere more modern systems with free path and skill choice.
Last edited:
It's generally a good way to "roleplay", you can't do everything with every builds.
But it's just an idea. I think with more "fixed" classes, they should have done more "specific" perks for each class, at least way less "general" like we have currently.
Also a good way to "make" that each classes possibly resolve quests in different ways (Netrunner dialogue lines, only available for netrunners and not because you have this attribute at a specific level...)
Well, you don't necessarily have to lock people into a class at the very beginning. It is a rather, shall we say, classical, method of doing things. It's not the only way though.
Stats are essentially the determining factor in what "class" are. The problem is that with 50 levels and 1 point per level you can essentially become a jack of all trades without any real downsidex. Jacks of all trades used to be masters of none but in CP2077 you can almost become a master of all.
Had the level cap been lower, players would've had to make choices into what "class" they essentially want to build. What cyberware they want to unlock. Which dialogue options you want to unlock. What weapons you can/can't use and so on.
It's today's design philosophy in action. Empower the player - let them live their power fantasy by being awesome at everything if they choose to be. I suspect that for most players that's awesome design. For the rest of us... not so much but since the majority* likes it, it ain't about to change.
*No hard data on that, of course, so I'm only speculating.
It was just an example, but yeah. The idea was to make "choices" on how to build your character and in function of these choices, you won't be able to achieve everything
It is very hard to implement the rules of the TRPGs into a computer game because the TRPG does not use levels. They do also not use perks, powers etc. which we know from many modern computer games. The TRPGs only have attributes, which are static, and skills, which can be improved, with some speicals skills based on the role (= class) of the character. And that's all.
Had CDPR used the TRPG rules several gamers would have revolted because the things you are discussing here are missing. no perks which gives you some boni, no ability improvement, forced roles which you only can change if you have reached a certain skill level in the skill of your current role, no weapon improvements, etc.
Had CDPR used the TRPG rules several gamers would have revolted because the things you are discussing here are missing. no perks which gives you some boni, no ability improvement, forced roles which you only can change if you have reached a certain skill level in the skill of your current role, no weapon improvements, etc.
An extremely faithful adaption might be difficult. But a turn-based party RPG with combat mechanics like XCOM plus social interactions like Baldur's Gate, I could see that working very well. But of course that would be a very different game.
Post automatically merged:
There's another reason for doing that. Most people complete a game only once. That's especially true for story-driven games like CP2077 or the witcher. So in order to make that one playthrough as enjoyable as possible, you don't want to lock away too many options behind restrictions like different classes. It would be odd to put a lot of effort into adding lots of variety in your game, but then prevent the player from actually enjoying it.
But just because your player character is, in theory, reasonably good at many things, there's nothing that prevents you from roleplaying, say, an ex-corpo agent that sneaks around and only uses pistols.
Post automatically merged:
Yeah but... I feel like the discussion is going a bit in circles now.Finally someone that gets it. It felt like I was speaking mandarin.
Personally, the levelled loot and enemies and the associated need to spend an increasingly gargantuan amount of resources on keeping the weapons I wanted to use up-to-date were the only aspect that substantially diminished my enjoyment of the game. And I was able to eliminate that reasonably well with mods.
But overall I am fortunate, and probably biased, in that a game with decent shooter gameplay, light RPG mechanics and a great story with still plenty of meaningful choices, that's exactly my kind of game. I didn't miss intricate RPG mechanics or being able to tackle each mission in 5 different ways and I was okay with not doing a lot of the side content due to the urgency of the main narrative. And while many aspects of the game feel unfinished or don't mesh 100% CP2077 is overall still one of my favorite games of all time.
Last edited:
I partially agree with you.
It's good to not lock it behind classes at the very beginning of a game but I disagree that players should be able to be good everything and be the center of everything all at once. I think that takes away from the game and replayability. Why do any of your choices matter if either way you'll end up being able to do everything? Why would I even invest an ounce of thought into my character's build if I'll end up being great at everything? Why would I replay a game if I saw everything on the first go?
There are plenty of games where I was locked out of XYZ because I chose ABC and never replayed the game after finishing it. Not because I was mad but because I was satisfied with what I got. I played a certain way and if the consequences/effects of that made sense, so be it.
These days people want meaningful choices but none of the consequences from them. You only need to look at this very forum to see that. One of the main complaints against the game is the lack of meaningful choices. Then you turn around and the same people who advocated for more meaningful choices are complaining that they got locked out of Fingers' shop after punching him. Well, yeah, people have a tendency to dislike you when you punch them in the face.
They want deep, believable, characters but the second a romance interest isn't interested in them, they complain. Because the player has to be the center of everything.
The list goes on but I'm sure you get my point. Pandering to players power fantasy is a design philosophy that extends far beyond just classes and skills and it's one I don't particularly support. That's not to say I can't enjoy it but it's definitely not my favorite. I do realize this is just my opinion and that I'm most likely in the minority.
Sadly, the industry believes that all SciFi RPGs must always have real-time combat and only Fantasy RPGs may have turn-based combat. The last open-world SciFi RPG similiar to Baldur's Gate was KOTOR II. But I really doubt that Cyberpunk 2077 would have been successfull if it had turn-based combat.
And I don't disagree with you. At least not in principle. But at the end of the day, a game developer has limited budget. If you write a story with many meaningful choices, that means you have to invest a lot of resources into producing content that a single player will never see in their single playthrough. Resources that you could have invested in an overall longer or more polished game instead.
Now if you add different core gameplay mechanics - shooting, melee, sneaking, hacking - into your game, well, first of all you need to develop even more systems and content, as opposed to focusing on one or two mechanics and spending your resources on polishing them. But if you then prevent players from using all these systems by tying them to classes or progression systems, then you have even more that many players in their one and only playthrough won't be able to experience.
I'm not saying that all games should be linear experiences for that reason. But you have to strike a balance. And I feel that some people who always expect more choices don't take into account that this comes with a price.
In the case of CP2077, I feel it would be better if choices and consequences was left mainly to the story department, with the character V, mechanically speaking, being relatively well defined as a guy or girl who can shoot, punch and sneak, and maybe hack a a bit, with the player being free to choose between these approaches as they see fit. And then focusing polishing that.
As for this particular example, I can understand both sides. On the one hand, giving characters defined sexualities makes them more real. On the other hand, if your game has only one option for each gender-sexuality-combination, then maybe it's not a bad idea to make the characters player-sexual after all.
Post automatically merged:
I doubt that too. But to be honest, if there was only one big budget Cyberpunk (or any other interesting setting, like Mass Effect) game to be developed, I'd hope too that it's going to be a cinematic, story-driven first or third person shooter/action adventure/RPG. You just can't beat that in terms of immersion and emotional impact. At least I haven't seen it. If that game is received well, you can still make a tactical turn based RPG or something as spin-off on a smaller scale.
Last edited:
I like this response a lot. It nails the core of creative design right on the head. It's all about the balance. We want to create new things for the audience to experience...but it can't be too new or out-there, or the audience won't have any context for understanding it. We want to mix things up and introduce exciting new ways to play...but sometimes innovations can go too far and add confusion (...why not just stick with what works?) We want to give players exciting challenges to overcome...but if it's too challenging it becomes frustrating, or too easy and it becomes pointless and boring.
Striking that balance is definitely a monstrous undertaking. The bigger the project, the more moving parts, and the more any one part can break down and create issues for the whole experience.
So, would CP2077 have been better as a shooter? I don't think so, but I can easily see how it could have been done that way. It would probably have wound up being something like the pretty good Dark Messiah of Might and Magic. Definitely not an RPG, but a fun exploration of Might and Magic tropes.
What I think may have been effective would have been to limit V's class to something that was a solo at its core, and then maybe give the player the option to augment it with either netrunning or tech trees. In that way, I think the character would have been more streamlined for the story being told. Just like Geralt will solve most problems with a sword, then make life easier by drinking decoctions and throwing an occasional bomb, V would pull out a gun for most situations and try to make life easier by hacking the random computer to turn off automated defenses or using a tech skill to blow a generator.
I think that would have created a more focused character for V, allowing the game to do combat in much more detail, and have stealth, netrunning, or tech options remain more signature based on how the player built their character. To me, the game's story seems to regard V like a mercenary solo regardless of the player's build.
Last edited:
I agree. The story does regard V as a solo. And I feel like a mix of shooting, sneaking, and a bit of "utility hacking" is the intended, always viable, and mechanically most rewarding playstyle, whether that's intentional or not. Combat quickhacking feels like an afterthought. It is mechanically less interesting, doesn't fit to the lore (damage quickhacks don't exis in the tabletob game), and you're not a netrunner since you never do any netrunning (apart from one sequence in which you're treated as not knowledgeable). An independent techie playstyle doesn't really exist anyway - you can craft guns but that will only help you in shooting, but you can never build or repair more than plugging a cable into a generator.
Your Witcher 3 comparison is pretty good I think. You could imagine a signs aka wizard playstyle as independent, viable playstyle for Geralt and remove that aspect from the default playstyle, and give players more choice in this regard. But you'd end up with two playstyles that are both less varied than what is in the game, taking player choice away in that sense. And have one playstyle that doesn't fit to the narrative. And you'd have to stretch your resources more thinly in order to make both playstyles fun and balanced and always a viable option. That would be an improvent for players who love magic but hate swordfighting, yes, but would make the game worse for everyone else. You'd appeal to a broader audience but you'd end up with a worse game.