Can/Should CP2077 be pure single-character or player-controllrd party based?

[Sardukhar]

Ah, I did play DA:O.

I found the AI to be okay..not particularly wonderful. The scripting system was pretty impressive, but that's user-injected and adjusted. Not a lot of artificial intelligence was being used, when it's the user setting up the scripts for different characters and options to cover a wide range of variables in combat.

Nice scripting system, though. Pity the enemy wasn't smarter.

 

[Harthwain]

Most seem to prefer limited to no control over party member skills?
Most prefer limited control of party member (as opposed to main character) actions as total control almost necessitates turn-based combat because there's no practical way to control multiple people real-time?
An AI for party members with scripting options similar to Dragons Age. Because a single AI, no matter how good, can't take into account player variation in how they choose to play the game?
A "pause" option during combat is desired?

It's more complicated. It comes down to how the environment is done. In SWAT 4 I had some control over other team members and snipers and it was very well done, although the game itself was a tactical FPS. In Baldur's Gate I could control everyone with active pause. In action game? It'd rather customize my crew with scripts (a lot of them) rather than have to give them orders all the time. Active pause can be a way out, but I'd like scripts more, because scripts allow you customize behavior without having to micromanage everyone at all times and let me focus on my own character. In CP77 it seems to be important, given how deadly combat is supposed to be.

 

[Lolssi83.811]

1. The consensus seems to be CP2077 should be small (3 to 4) party-based rather then single character.

2. Most seem to prefer limited to no control over party member skills?
3. Most prefer limited control of party member (as opposed to main character) actions as total control almost necessitates turn-based combat because there's no practical way to control multiple people real-time?
4. An AI for party members with scripting options similar to Dragons Age. Because a single AI, no matter how good, can't take into account player variation in how they choose to play the game?
5. A "pause" option during combat is desired?

1. Hmm I'd like companions sure but I'd think it should be more like you start alone and during game you aquire and loose people. I know it is cyberpunk to hire help for missions but in that case make it more than pay him and you have no personality goon following you around.
How many? 1 to 5 doesn't matter until I know the control I have over them.
2. If they are regular faces on missions then I'd like to upgrade them but not if they are random hires. But I'd definately like to see them use their profits to get better gear.
3. More they can handle their own the better. In Mass Effect 3 I gave orders to team mates propably under 5 times in whole game and found the interface for it somewhat slow and not ideal. Other end of spectrum would be Advanced Warfighters.
4. I'd much rather have them use their own "brain". I'd hope we'll have less combat skill and powers so we don't have need for similar scripting.
5. Like it was brought up already the time slowing down sounds perfect. Then again you can do real-time orders without it but usually those aren't middle of combat.

Advanced Warfighters had (been years since I've played so memory is so so) efficient AI and fast simple command interface (some orders and fighting start after 3 minutes).

SWAT 4 had more complex control system and AI wasn't as independent but you could see through eyes of your team mates and give orders to them (around 2 minute mark).
[video=youtube;-Zg4OMScy7g]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Zg4OMScy7g[/video]

 

[vongo.859]

For this game specifically, I'd prefer pure single-character play and real-time combat. Party-based play should be minimal, unless it is co-op (which I'll save for another discussion). The Skyrim like companion system would be best, albeit with more depth and personality for the characters, and considerably better AI.

If for any reason CDPR chooses to go with party-based gameplay and non-real-time combat, I would hope for limited control over party members and slow motion over stopped motion. Limited control means you can shout commands (or give scripted commands ahead of time) and influence some of their choices in gear and weaponry (influence would rely on the players ability to persuade), but they effectively act on their own. Class roles and personality should also affect how these "recruits" act in certain situations. Slow motion over stopped motion is pretty straight forward, but the ideal slow motion would be similar to how GTA V handles it when players manage their weapon wheel or character selection. I honestly think that that is the perfect balance of slow motion and I wouldn't want it any other way.

To reiterate, I do want the game to have a single-character focus (and with real-time combat), but I think people should have the ability to "recruit" as many "helpers" as they can. Players should not be limited to one. There is no reason for that. Limitations should come from how the "helpers" react to the player, how helpers react to other helpers, whether they player has the money to pay for them or effectively persuade them, whether it be through blackmail or smooth-talking. I'd also like for players to be able to get assistance from random people off the streets. These NPCs would have talents, abilities, and personalities generated in a similar manner to how Watchdogs generates random NPC background info. Lastly, recruiting these NPCs would rely on a number of things including the situation, what the NPC knows of your character, your character's appearance (intimidating? attractive? unfortunate choice in skin color?), and your character's ability to persuade (through whatever means you have - threats, smooth talk, promise of reward). These NPCs would generally be pretty limited in what they can do, and therefor have fewer customization options (effectively none, compared to the established "recruits").

Also it would be cool if there could maybe be some unique recruits that can only be recruited through these random NPC events.

 

[Lolssi83.811]

I'd also like for players to be able to get assistance from random people off the streets. These NPCs would have talents, abilities, and personalities generated in a similar manner to how Watchdogs generates random NPC background info. Lastly, recruiting these NPCs would rely on a number of things including the situation, what the NPC knows of your character, your character's appearance (intimidating? attractive? unfortunate choice in skin color?), and your character's ability to persuade (through whatever means you have - threats, smooth talk, promise of reward). These NPCs would generally be pretty limited in what they can do, and therefor have fewer customization options (effectively none, compared to the established "recruits").

Sounds great. I'd also like to see civilian joining the fight and looting the weapon from a dead guy.

 

[Suhiira]

I guess I'm dense but I just don't "get" the advantages of a "slow down" vs a "pause" during combat.
Or is it merely because non-stop combat action is preferable?

It really seems to boil down to some people want an "Action Game": real-time combat with no option to "pause" the action (maybe, maybe slow it down a bit for a few seconds but NOT stop it altogether), smart and challenging opponent AI, little to no control over companion activity (assuming it's not totally single-player with no companions at all - maybe temporary "disposable" hirelings).

Others are thinking more "traditional" PC RPG without turn-based combat and companions who's actions, skills, and equipment you have total control over.

 

[Lolssi83.811]

I guess I'm dense but I just don't "get" the advantages of a "slow down" vs a "pause" during combat.
Or is it merely because non-stop combat action is preferable?

Well you still have some urgency to do things which I think is great. Otherwise we could have just turn-based game which is OK too.
In the end pause system ain't that important to me. I've seen working command interfaces in real time, slow down and with pause. It all comes down to group size and combat system. Personally I'm hoping more passive skills and less hotbar abilities.

 

[vongo.859]

Sounds great. I'd also like to see civilian joining the fight and looting the weapon from a dead guy.

Yeah, I think things like that would add a lot of depth to the experience without being a particularly unreasonable demand for CDPR.

I guess I'm dense but I just don't "get" the advantages of a "slow down" vs a "pause" during combat.
Or is it merely because non-stop combat action is preferable?

For me it's about the non-stop action. The slow motion provides that feeling and retains a bit of the adrenaline from it. At least, certainly more than "paused" combat.

Games with "paused" or turn-based combat don't provide the level of adrenaline and danger that I want to feel when playing CP2077. However, I also don't think that achieving that level of "adrenaline and danger" requires combat with quick, twitch-speed gameplay - just real-time.

Real-time vs slow-time/paused isn't that important to me. It isn't a make or break deal. I just think real-time would be better.

EDIT: In response to your edit... yeah, pretty much.

 

[Suhiira]

Well if it does turn out to be FPS I won't be buying it, that's NOT a threat or me pouting because it's not designed the way I want. It's because I am physically incapable of playing most FPS games so why buy a game I can't play?

 

[Lolssi83.811]

Well if it does turn out to be FPS I won't be buying it, that's NOT a threat or me pouting because it's not designed the way I want. It's because I am physically incapable of playing most FPS games so why buy a game I can't play?

I'm assuming that was rhetoric question? Wouldn't worry too much this is CDPx we're talking. Little worry is always good though.
Personally I'd prefer fps movement and combat but with heavy emphasis on skills and talents a la Bloodlines and Deus Ex.

 

[dragonbird]

Well if it does turn out to be FPS I won't be buying it, that's NOT a threat or me pouting because it's not designed the way I want. It's because I am physically incapable of playing most FPS games so why buy a game I can't play?

Two years ago, I'd have said the same - I still struggle with the controls for a long time with a new game, but if they don't overdo the number of different keys you need to press, I find it isn't a problem.

(And it's also the reason why I tend to get pissed-off when people define Easy difficulty as "Casual". I'm anything but casual about my games, but it isn't unusual for me to do the first playthrough on easy)

 

[Suhiira]

I'm assuming that was rhetoric question?

I honestly hope so.

Two years ago, I'd have said the same - I still struggle with the controls for a long time with a new game, but if they don't overdo the number of different keys you need to press, I find it isn't a problem.

Not only the finger acrobatics of hitting a bunch of keys as the same time (since it's obviously a controller port and hitting several buttons at the same time is easy on those) but also the timing issues. A fraction too short/long/early/late and you're toast, start over.

 

[Harthwain]

Not only the finger acrobatics of hitting a bunch of keys as the same time (since it's obviously a controller port and hitting several buttons at the same time is easy on those) but also the timing issues. A fraction too short/long/early/late and you're toast, start over.

I didn't play FPS game where you need to do finger acrobatics to be honest. Mostly because in FPS games all you need is your left hand on the keyboard and right on the mouse. If you need the third hand to operate whatever the game designers developed - Dark Souls 2 on default keyboard settings... - then I doubt the game was even supposed to be an FPS in the first place as FPSes primary place is on PC, with mouse and keyboard.

 

[Sardukhar]

Well if it does turn out to be FPS I won't be buying it, that's NOT a threat or me pouting because it's not designed the way I want. It's because I am physically incapable of playing most FPS games so why buy a game I can't play?

I'll buy it for you, even if so. And the answer is, to wander around in the game world. I regularly suck at all sorts of games and I still enjoy the hell out of them.

It's NOT going to be an FPS. CDPR keeps stating and restating it - it's an RPG. They've never made an FPS. If it had cars, would you think it was going to be a driving game? Because it might and it won't. Stop. Worrying. Trust the Puppy!

(And it's also the reason why I tend to get pissed-off when people define Easy difficulty as "Casual". I'm anything but casual about my games, but it isn't unusual for me to do the first playthrough on easy)

You Casual.

A fraction too short/long/early/late and you're toast, start over.

Frustrating but rewarding if you get it right. I enjoy that as much as,say,having my face handed to me in Divinity Original in because I am tactically inept sometimes. Speaking of which, both of you should check it out.
Also anyone who likes a good RPG.

It mildly concerns me people might not play, say, STALKER, because they regard it as and FPS. If this is the case, you are really missing something special. Stalker and Call of Pripyat are excellent.

Also Bloodlines and Deus Ex, both superb and both could fall pretty easily into FPS category if you just ran around and shot crap a lot.

I didn't find Dark Souls that captivating, in terms of combat and setting and story. Without being harsh, I put it into my hack and slash category. I played on the PS3 a fair bit - fun, but often tiresome.

 

[Suhiira]

Frustrating but rewarding if you get it right. I enjoy that as much as,say,having my face handed to me in Divinity Original in because I am tactically inept sometimes. Speaking of which, both of you should check it out.

I mentioned elsewhere I was betaing Original Sin ... playing it now.

 

[Lolssi83.811]

Cooping Divinity with friend. God damn those conversations are annoying when other player has no idea what is going on. Hopefully they fix it soon.

 

[presstheeject]

Though after GTA V's multiple main character approach, I could see something like that working as well.

THIS, but make the other characters your own.
There's a mod for Skyrim which lets you summon other characters you've made and have a save file on. Either to fight them or to have them as a companion. That would be awesome, hire your own characters for jobs and stuff.

 

[Suhiira]

Yeah but then they'd all have your personality ... and who'd wanna play with you

 

[Maelcom404]

(And it's also the reason why I tend to get pissed-off when people define Easy difficulty as "Casual". I'm anything but casual about my games, but it isn't unusual for me to do the first playthrough on easy)

IMO, an easy game isn't casual.
An "casual" game is more something like the Earthworm Jim remake, when they ADDED arrow to tell you "hey you, yes you the retard! It's here! go left!".
It kills the challenge and the joy of finding yourself the solution (nowadays you don't turn in circle wondering what to do, I remember some game who took me 2 days to understand how to pass some points in a game), that's what I call a casual game.
Some game like Dead Or Alive are pure casual game, because you don't have to get any skill to play it and win, you can play it for 5month and having your ass handled by a friend who'd play it for 4minutes.
Some game like Mortal Kombat, Soul Calibur, Tekken, Street Fighter, etc... have a "easy playing" style, but aren't casual, because you have to play them to earn "skills" which will make the difference between you and a "noob".
The same as the difference between Call Of' and Battlefield, to win in Call of Duty, you just need a good connection and playing a few time in a map.
Or look at the difference between Skyrim and Fallout, Skyrim is way too much "friendly" to the player than Fallout IMO.

Cyberpunk 2077 will need to have a decent difficulty, letting the player scratch his head to find the solution to their problem, no "arrows" or crap like this, no casual stuff, it's way more interesting when the player has to learn for themselves.

 

[Suhiira]

Keep in mind a LOT of game design is based on appealing to their target market while not alienating everyone else.

Calling the lowest game setting "Easy" implies those that use it are sub-par, calling it "Casual" implies they're just folks that like to play games but aren't living in mom's basement.