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

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

Any number of discussions here bring up the problems of a purely single-player game (that is to say one where the player controls one, and only one character).

Even if they permit characters access to every skill in the game it's not likely you'll be able to get good at them all (this isn't Elder Scrolls, I hope).
And who's gonna perform first aid on you?
Who's gonna hack the net if you're a Solo? Or protect your geek ass if you're a Netrunner?

So I'm thinking it would be best if CP2077 was single-player-controlled-party based (similar to the Baldurs Gate or Shadowrun games).

What's the MINIMUM number of Cyberpunk characters that could form a viable party?
I'm thinking 4:
Combat specialist
Netrunner (cross-skilled in electronics)
Tech (skilled in medic and mechanics)
Other (your variable character dependent on mission or play-style)

Sure the party could be 20 ... but I'm looking at what's the bare minimum to be viable?
 
Depending on the jobs you take, 1.

Be careful. Don't take team-necessary jobs. Have a Trauma Team card.

Some jobs, hire temporary help to act as distraction or crack AI/security.

Rache Bartmoss laughs at the idea of Team. Probably so do lots of Medias, ballsy crazy fuckers that they are. Thompson, for example. C-SWAT heavies are known to go Borg-hunting solo.

Lots of Cyberpunk isn't intrusion based - it's living your life as a Nomad or Netrunner or Fixer or Rockerboy. Does your band count?

But if you want to handle the whole range of jobs out there - headhunting, intrusion, heists, large-scale theft/robbery, rescues, Trauma Team unit, police work, corporate takeover, etc and so forth

Yeah, four seems like a good start point. Those Roles would really vary depending on the jobs above. A Rockerboy Band doesn't need a combat specialist - they can hire bouncer/security NPCs by the half dozen or event, for example.

So the Main Character and whatever 3 other Roles the Job demanded. At least one will generally by security, either Net or Tech. Again depending on the job, everyone should have First Aid and everyone should always have Trauma Team, so no medical spec needed.
 
I'm hoping for this - a party-based game with player-control over the party. If that's too big a technical leap for the engine, then party-based with AI control over the party is an acceptable second choice. And yes, four maximum for the party, with choice throughout the game to change the party for specific missions, or to go in alone.

And the party members should have their own lives, and personalities, while not with you. Which means they can refuse to join you, or rejoin you, if, in their opinion, you're a total asshole.
 
That would be my hope Dragonbird.
You treat your team mates badly, don't play them, don't share the loot they say "F you!". Now you can try to do it all yourself!

Might be a bit much to ask CDPR to do a male and female option for each of the 9 roles, specially if they're going to (and I agree it's basically mandatory) give each a personality, backstory, and in-game quests/goals. But four of each male/female and one "I'm not quite sure WHAT (s)he is?" would be doable.
 
Might be a bit much to ask CDPR to do a male and female option for each of the 9 roles, specially if they're going to (and I agree it's basically mandatory) give each a personality, backstory, and in-game quests/goals. But four of each male/female and one "I'm not quite sure WHAT (s)he is?" would be doable.

Which reminds me. I also don't want "party member" to equate to "sex partner". The two relationships should be kept separate.

No, I don't really see a need to have male/female options for them. Yes, there should be a good mix of both, but if they have, for example, three medtechs to choose from, I'd prefer the differentiation to be on whether or not they'd work with you in certain circumstances. So if you've acted like a dick and pissed off the expert, some guy who taught himself medicine in his basement by experimenting on rats may still be available.
 
Which reminds me. I also don't want "party member" to equate to "sex partner". The two relationships should be kept separate.

No, I don't really see a need to have male/female options for them. Yes, there should be a good mix of both, but if they have, for example, three medtechs to choose from, I'd prefer the differentiation to be on whether or not they'd work with you in certain circumstances. So if you've acted like a dick and pissed off the expert, some guy who taught himself medicine in his basement by experimenting on rats may still be available.

I find the romances amusing but of course VERY shallow because there's only so much time developers can allot to fleshing them out. That said I was annoyed my ONLY male romance option in the original Baldurs Gate was someone I didn't even want in the party with me much less in bed.

Multiple NPCs available for each role would be ideal, but again 9 roles x 3 = 27 story-lines, voice actors, etc. not terribly practical. If they allow party-based play I suspect we'll just have to deal with whoever they create for each role and love then, hate them, ignore them as fits our personality vs theirs.
 
It may depend on how much control you DO have over the party members. If you control everything about them except their personalities/opinion of you, then you may control their development, what cyber they acquire, what weapons/tools they have.

Generally, if you're playing with a party, it's good for the members to have primary and secondary specialisms, so that someone can take over if a party member is hurt, or for the needs of the mission. Your team in the first post also suggested that.

So you could need a lot less than 3 versions of each person. If your preferred medtech tells you to piss off, the alternative may be someone who has it as a secondary skill.
 
Good points Dragonbird.

While there's a lot to be said for being able to control the skills your party members gain it'd be a lot more "realistic" if they just had a preset skill improvement routine, that way they're less like puppets who's only reason for existence is to support you character.
That said you should be able to give them armor and weapons to use - yes I said GIVE - not loan till you decide to replace them with someone else later in the game and strip them to their undies to equip their replacement.
 
Good points Dragonbird.

While there's a lot to be said for being able to control the skills your party members gain it'd be a lot more "realistic" if they just had a preset skill improvement routine, that way they're less like puppets who's only reason for existence is to support you character.
That said you should be able to give them armor and weapons to use - yes I said GIVE - not loan till you decide to replace them with someone else later in the game and strip them to their undies to equip their replacement.

Yup, I was thinking that. But you could also loan equipment to them. They may not give it back though...
 
Yup, I was thinking that. But you could also loan equipment to them. They may not give it back though...

That....that would get annoying. Heck, even in Fallout 3 and NV, managing other people's inventory got tiresome fairly quickly. If you accidentally gave your favourite chipset to an NPC, only to have them refuse to give it back....no.

Although it's very solid role-play, it's also pesky in a SP CRPG. I'd like a switch for this option, or an OOC over-ride.
 
That....that would get annoying. Heck, even in Fallout 3 and NV, managing other people's inventory got tiresome fairly quickly. If you accidentally gave your favourite chipset to an NPC, only to have them refuse to give it back....no.

Although it's very solid role-play, it's also pesky in a SP CRPG. I'd like a switch for this option, or an OOC over-ride.

It shouldn't be random, or automatic, but if you piss the guy off and he refuses to work with you any more, he shouldn't give you your toys back first.
 
It shouldn't be random, or automatic, but if you piss the guy off and he refuses to work with you any more, he shouldn't give you your toys back first.

Still a game. Still frustrating to lose your stuff because you forgot you left your other pair of Gibson's in his backpack. The game would have to factor in sooo many things that the PnP would handle - Your Rep, his Rep, your skills vs his skills if it comes to a fight, which he would think of before telling you no, your Attr and Emp vs his Cool and Emp, maybe your Cool, give you a chance to talk to him, etc.

And most players, when this happened, would swear and just reload to before they pissed him off.

Now, if he threw your crap on the ground and stormed off, I don't think that would cause a reload or a shoot out, and would still be nice and RP and would also be pretty funny - in a restaurant or a bar or a schoolground or whatever.
 
Hey if you're in too much of a hurry or too lazy to check what exactly you're giving an NPC don't blame them for keeping it!
So you're saying your actions shouldn't have consequences?

Nothing you can do about players reloading to fix mistakes, short of an extremely artificial one-save system that will piss off FAR more people then it excites.

One thing everyone has to keep in mind, including me, is the way YOU want to play a game is not the way the majority of players will.
 
Last edited:
n mind, including me, is the way YOU want to play a game is not the way the majority of players will.

Wellll...

I think we can be pretty sure that people don't enjoy frustration in a game. What is being suggested, losing your gear to an NPC, is going to be frustrating to most people. Gear make a difference and we become attached to it.

Many of your actions should be consequence free, yes. Because video game. Escapism, etc.

The way I want to play the game is quite possibly the way the majority of players will for several reasons: I'm a huge Cyberpunk fan, I'm a huge Witcher fan, I like both FPS and TPS playstyles, I like PvE and PvP, I enjoy complex storylines as well as simple shoot-and-loot mechanics and I'm good looking. Just saying.

That said, my -most preferred- playstyle of 2020 Mode, yeah, that will be rarer. Probably. Dark Souls stands in testament to my most preferred playstyle.

I'm an easy market to fulfill and consequently, I enjoy most, if not all, popular games.

Let yourself be guided by me, Sue. Let yoursssssself goooooooooo....
 
I've long wondered why many games even bother with levels, players complain loudly about the waste of time grinding to the end-game content (particularly the PvP/Raid crowds).
Just start everyone at max level with the best possible gear.

Well that obviously won't work because then almost no one would bother to play the game because as vocal as those minorities may be they ARE minorities, they of course scream loud and long that they represent the vast majority of gamers but deep down I like to think even they know it isn't so, but I may be wrong, self-delusion is very powerful. Look at any number dictators throughout history that were positive their rule of tyranny would be successful.
 
I've long wondered why many games even bother with levels, players complain loudly about the waste of time grinding to the end-game content (particularly the PvP/Raid crowds).
Just start everyone at max level with the best possible gear.

Well that obviously won't work because then almost no one would bother to play the game because as vocal as those minorities may be they ARE minorities, they of course scream loud and long that they represent the vast majority of gamers but deep down I like to think even they know it isn't so, but I may be wrong, self-delusion is very powerful. Look at any number dictators throughout history that were positive their rule of tyranny would be successful.

Hey.

Hey.

HEY.

Some of those dictators were VERY LOVELY PEOPLE. Don't denigrate.

Well, I'm using quality criteria here. My tastes are easy to appease because they are so a) inline with CDPR's past work and b) pretty not-fussy. I liked Halo and WoW. There you go. I'm enjoying Watch Dogs and Original Sin. (You have to play Original Sin. It's so far damn great.) I don't think the Dark Souls or Halo or WoW or whichever-popular-game players are a minority - we are the majority. Us and the EA Sports fans. Those bastards.

These are not my favourite games, except for WoW, but I enjoyed them a lot and think that if CP2077 takes these lessons well, I will enjoy it a lot as well.

Anyway.

I love that Cyberpunk doesn't have levels...which is going to make powering up your party of four, (not five, that was a TV show) QUITE the thing. You would be task-customizing them, not making them more potent, necessarily.
 
keeping to the topic in the OP, I would say 3 could be the minimum. How you fit those 3 together though should become a highly specialized thing, instead of something like mass effect where you can basically take anyone anywhere and not have too much of an issue.

3 people gives you some...lets say maneuverability...in what you can choose on how to perform whatever you're doing, but in general doesn't let you cover all of the bases so you're forced to make decisions and plan a bit. Each situation could present multiple options, utilizing each class/role in some capacity, but forcing the player to take what works best for his/her play style. 3 people also means you're making a tradeoff somewhere for some other benefit, instead of being able to make a reasonably balanced party that can reasonably do anything. There should be a system of tradeoffs that makes it impossible to form the unbeatable party.

3 person parties allow a system of tradeoffs and planning to be made, without being so limiting as duos or as able to handle pretty much anything with 4. The example party listed in the OP basically could handle anything at any time, because of that flex slot. Remove that flex slot and you're left with a reasonably balanced party, but you won't be able to handle everything, which forces your hand into making decisions and adds a hell of a lot more replayability.
 
Top Bottom