yeah,.................. no......
I want to directly control one character, my character.... any NPC I team up with should act pretty much on their own.... anything to far beyond fallout style companions would make this game crap..
Though after GTA V's multiple main character approach, I could see something like that working as well.
I want to directly control one character, my character.... any NPC I team up with should act pretty much on their own.... anything to far beyond fallout style companions would make this game crap..
Though after GTA V's multiple main character approach, I could see something like that working as well.
I agree with this, I don't want to have to micromanage every little piece of the party. I'd want to select roles for the job I'm taking on, but outside of that I really could care less about how said NPC party member is geared up or whatever. Which is a strong point for having co-op multiplayer in that you definitely don't have to do any of that, you just have to have some basic communication.
I am not keen on seeing some rudimentary control system for NPC-team (if there will be something like this), because I have yet to see a game where you can control your character in TPP/FPS while giving order to NPCs at the same time. The need to keep allies alive would only add to the annoyance. Unless we could enter some sort of "tactical screen" mode - (with game paused), looking at the battlefield from the top and give out orders like in turn based strategy games (go here, take cover, give covering fire here, overwatch this zone, etc) - I am opposed to having something like ME. I'd rather go in alone or with other players.
I found the NPC "scripting" function in Dragon Age worked fairly well. I know many hated it but for the most part once you got enough script options opened (and yes I thought making them a skill you had to buy was STUPID) you could pretty much ignore the rest of the party and concentrate on your character. If needed you could pause and give someone a specific action to perform but for the most part it was unnecessary.
I know I have a fundamental difference of opinion with some here, but I don't see a "pause" option in combat as at all a bad thing. Quite the opposite I like to start combat paused and look over the terrain and opposition and plan what I'm going to to, decide who's the primary target, etc. That is NOT ment to even remotely suggest I favor turn-based combat (because I know someone is going to claim anything less then non-stop real-time combat is turn based).
I know I have a fundamental difference of opinion with some here, but I don't see a "pause" option in combat as at all a bad thing. Quite the opposite I like to start combat paused and look over the terrain and opposition and plan what I'm going to to, decide who's the primary target, etc. That is NOT ment to even remotely suggest I favor turn-based combat (because I know someone is going to claim anything less then non-stop real-time combat is turn based).
Last edited:
Ah, yes, it could work. I am still afraid of having dumb companions spoiling my plans though. It's pretty much the norm in games where you can't control other characters. Take Fallout 2 (or even 3) for an example. In the end I stopped taking "followers", because they ended up getting killed and were causing me more trouble than it was worth having them around.
People who claim pause being same as turn-based simply have no idea what they're talking about. There is no reason to concern yourself with them.
I think companion AI has been fine for past 10 years. Sure they aren't the sharpest tools always but they can often hold their own, use their abilities and even heal you. Last game I had issues with AI companions was SWAT 3 when your team mates moved infront of you while you were firing and you failed the mission.
Though you don't really get companions killed these days they're just incapacitated. But I'd like to see possibility to loose companions because otherwise I'll propably mostly use the same guys whole game.... I want back-stabbing also (I still remember Baldur's Gate foundly)! And for this the companions can't be running to the bullets but usually cover/follow me has worked just fine.
Though you don't really get companions killed these days they're just incapacitated. But I'd like to see possibility to loose companions because otherwise I'll propably mostly use the same guys whole game.... I want back-stabbing also (I still remember Baldur's Gate foundly)! And for this the companions can't be running to the bullets but usually cover/follow me has worked just fine.
Didn't bother me really. With 4 companions in dungeon I got stuck occasionally when I couldn't get past'em, quick load fixed that quickly. But other than that they did nice job clearing the dungeon while I followed mostly looting. Sure they couldn't open locked doors or fix puzzles but let's be reasonable... actually rogues in D&D games often automatically open locks and disable traps.
Oh and one of my favorite Gamebryo features is when I manage to loose my companion or horse somewhere in the wilderness and then the several days later I see someone running towards me weapons drawn and get ready to fight until I notice it is my idiot companion
Bigger fault in Skyrim's companions were the lack of personality they were just packmules that said same lines over and over again but they did good job fighting, summoning and raising dead.
Last edited:
I recall them mostly charging across the nearest trap to attack and always stopping it the narrow spots. I quickly learned they were generally far more trouble then they were worth and the lack of dialog/personality ment taking them along for the pure amusement value was rather pointless as well.
Back on topic (is that allowed?).
The consensus seems to be CP2077 should be small (3 to 4) party-based rather then single character.
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?
The consensus seems to be CP2077 should be small (3 to 4) party-based rather then single character.
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?
Last edited:
Hmm.
1. Nope, not here. I prefer the Witcher method, or temp. hiring NPCs. I hope CP2077 is single-character based.
2. I would like to level my party members skills, if I have party members.
3. Limited over full control, sure. Give orders and watch them clumsily obeyed. Really an argument for single-character, actually. Also, Skyrim is another argument for single-character - not sure why you thought discussion of Skyrim's NPC/party merits was off-topic?
4.Absolutely. Good AI for everyone, but absolutely for anyone you recruit or hire.
5.I...I kind of want to say no, but then again, I have no real issue with the idea. If you pause the game mid-combat, you are freezing everyone until you are done your turn. Like it or lump it, that's pretty similar to turn-based. Only you have total control over when your turn is. Still...not sure I'm against it. Maybe pause with timer? Or pause-with-appropriate cyberware/skillset? Make it a reward, not an automatic edge all players get. I kind of want my Rockerboy to crouch behind a wall while all chaos breaks loose and he can't do anything but whimper.
@Sardukhar - that seems to be almost the DA:O style for party combat/inventory/build management? But a bit more limited
I like the idea of limited control.
- You don't get control over their build or skill development, or what they wear, the AI does that, based on a combination of the character's overall role and what they've been doing in the game, with or without your presence. BUT, if you want to develop them in a certain way, you can buy them gifts (cyber or whatever) at your own expense. It may also make them like you more, or it may make them despise you. As I mentioned earlier, you can also give/loan/sell(?) them weapons and other tools. Even if Sard doesn't like it.
- You can give them an overall instruction before or during a mission, before or during combat, on how they're to act. In general, if they've agreed to go with you, they'll obey orders. There may be exceptions, but rule- or story-based, not as random events. (Example - if you've hired someone who isn't a fighter, he may run away or hide if there's combat. If you shoot someone in the same faction as a team-member, the team member may become an instant enemy)
Mechanism for in-combat instructions? Not sure. Active pause is one way, but it is still a nod to turn-based, which I don't think is right for this game. QTE is almost certainly out after TW2. Pre-scripted (DA:O style) might work but is maybe too much micro-management for most players.
Slow-down may work. If it was real life, you'd be using some kind of communication device (or just yelling at them). In-game, unless it's voice-activated, it's slower than real life, so to simulate it, the game would need to slow down while you communicate new instructions.
I like the idea of limited control.
- You don't get control over their build or skill development, or what they wear, the AI does that, based on a combination of the character's overall role and what they've been doing in the game, with or without your presence. BUT, if you want to develop them in a certain way, you can buy them gifts (cyber or whatever) at your own expense. It may also make them like you more, or it may make them despise you. As I mentioned earlier, you can also give/loan/sell(?) them weapons and other tools. Even if Sard doesn't like it.
- You can give them an overall instruction before or during a mission, before or during combat, on how they're to act. In general, if they've agreed to go with you, they'll obey orders. There may be exceptions, but rule- or story-based, not as random events. (Example - if you've hired someone who isn't a fighter, he may run away or hide if there's combat. If you shoot someone in the same faction as a team-member, the team member may become an instant enemy)
Mechanism for in-combat instructions? Not sure. Active pause is one way, but it is still a nod to turn-based, which I don't think is right for this game. QTE is almost certainly out after TW2. Pre-scripted (DA:O style) might work but is maybe too much micro-management for most players.
Slow-down may work. If it was real life, you'd be using some kind of communication device (or just yelling at them). In-game, unless it's voice-activated, it's slower than real life, so to simulate it, the game would need to slow down while you communicate new instructions.
Last edited:
1 - Umm, these ARE temp hires. You don't create them , choose their class, skills, or even basic equipment. If they have a skill-set you feel you need for a mission you hire them. They're NOT roomies or best friends, at least initially.
I like Dragons idea of being able to spend YOUR money to buy them cyberware, equipment, weapons. Probably a good way to improve their loyalty/morale and obviously efficiency. But in no way should they give it back after a mission, if you want them better equipped then they are by default (assuming of course their default gear isn't crap and "levels up" as the game progresses) it'll cost you. No free lunches in CP2077!
2 - Again they're not "party members" in the traditional sense. That's not to say as a Rockerboy you might not hire the same Solo as a bodyguard for the entire length of the game (assuming you can afford it).
3 - You assume all game AI sux, it doesn't. Yeah, 90% does, but there's no reason (other then laziness on the part of the developer) it has to. I take it you never played Origins (and spent the skill points to get most/all of the scripting slots)?
4 - Agreed.
5 - A slow down might work but NOT timed. Just because one person can evaluate the tactical situation and issue orders during a 3 second pause doesn't mean everyone can. And those that can't are going to be more pissed at a too-short (for them) pause then they would be at no pause at all. As Dragon said in RL you'd probably have discussed basic tactics/reactions during the mission brief and you can certainly yell at someone to cover you or move up while you cover them during a firefight, I don't know about you but I can talk a LOT faster then I can type and hit a <Finished> button.
And just because a pause feature exists in the game is no reason you have to use it. If you can't resist the temptation don't blame the game design.
Or maybe eliminate the combat pause option in Ironman mode, so those that "need" to beat the game at it's highest possible setting can't succumb to human weakness (same reason you only get one erased-on-death save).
I like Dragons idea of being able to spend YOUR money to buy them cyberware, equipment, weapons. Probably a good way to improve their loyalty/morale and obviously efficiency. But in no way should they give it back after a mission, if you want them better equipped then they are by default (assuming of course their default gear isn't crap and "levels up" as the game progresses) it'll cost you. No free lunches in CP2077!
2 - Again they're not "party members" in the traditional sense. That's not to say as a Rockerboy you might not hire the same Solo as a bodyguard for the entire length of the game (assuming you can afford it).
3 - You assume all game AI sux, it doesn't. Yeah, 90% does, but there's no reason (other then laziness on the part of the developer) it has to. I take it you never played Origins (and spent the skill points to get most/all of the scripting slots)?
4 - Agreed.
5 - A slow down might work but NOT timed. Just because one person can evaluate the tactical situation and issue orders during a 3 second pause doesn't mean everyone can. And those that can't are going to be more pissed at a too-short (for them) pause then they would be at no pause at all. As Dragon said in RL you'd probably have discussed basic tactics/reactions during the mission brief and you can certainly yell at someone to cover you or move up while you cover them during a firefight, I don't know about you but I can talk a LOT faster then I can type and hit a <Finished> button.
And just because a pause feature exists in the game is no reason you have to use it. If you can't resist the temptation don't blame the game design.
Or maybe eliminate the combat pause option in Ironman mode, so those that "need" to beat the game at it's highest possible setting can't succumb to human weakness (same reason you only get one erased-on-death save).
Last edited:
Agree, not timed. If it's a slow-down, the world is still revolving, and you may get killed before you've finished issuing instructions, but not a fixed duration.
Giggle.
After I'd run out of ways to play DA:O, I installed the mod to improve the scripting, and the mod to give you all slots from the start of the game, and the mod to allow you to script the character you were controlling. The challenge was to do ALL combat through scripting, and just sit back and watch the fights with no player input at all. Fun days...
Last edited:
No party based play for me. Single character with one partner to control, max. And not even full control. I want the complexity and challenge to stem from one man/woman overcoming the odds, that cyberpunk ethos of you against the corporation.
Yep, once you had all the scripting slots open and figured out what actions to prioritize when filling them with the pre-set commands it became VERY easy to just let the AI fight for you. I've yet to see or hear of any other game series that uses a similar system and I have no clue why not, it worked a zillion times better then any other AI I've ever seen.
As far as I'm concerned the AI system is one of the most impressive features of the entire Dragons Age series.
Last edited: