CDPR vindicated those who doubted their promise

[LeKill3rFou]

And because V is living in a futuristic city with a multiple ways to swiftly move around it and multiple ways to quickly contact other people living there, there's no logical explanation as to why they would delay their search for the relic issue.

I talk for me, but my V have reasons.
My V want to earn money, to buy or loot better weapons/cyberwares/stuffs and to meet some friends/allies, with the objective to not die stupidly by a bullet while trying to find a way to survive... So in my mind, if V assault the Arasaka tower with the stuff that she had at the beginning, it's sure, she would find a way to die, not a way to survive
Exactly the same in most of games for me and TW3 obviously. In my mind, in TW3, if I was Geralt, the bloody baron would say me right at the beginning where was Ciri, under torture if needed with Yen help (I don't have time for your family problems, dude...)

Edit : To maybe take a closer example, in RDR2 when Arthur was near death (almost useless to eat, very underweighted... you really feel that it's the end...) it didn't stop me from going hunting, fishing, exploring and walking around...

 

[Czembro]

I talk for me, but my V have reasons.
My V want to earn money, to buy or loot better weapons/cyberwares/stuffs and to meet some friends/allies, with the objective to not die stupidly by a bullet while trying to find a way to survive... So in my mind, if V assault the Arasaka tower with the stuff that she had at the beginning, it's sure, she would find a way to die, not a way to survive
(exactly the same in most of games for me and TW3 obviously)

This is a far stretch in the face of what the game presents player with. The prospect of assaulting Arasak tower comes late in the main storyline, so it's not plausible for V to use it as a driving factor for looking for friends and equipment for better part of MQ. I understand that you can create whatever headcanon you can and it's OK - V doesn't have to behave rationally in a face of imminent death, but I like to account for every info that game gives me when I roleplay and unfortunatelly, with what info CP77 provides player with, there is little to no room to deviate from the beaten path of main storyline, unlike some games (like Witcher 3) that gives player more freedom with its vagueness.

 

[LeKill3rFou]

The prospect of assaulting Arasak tower comes late in the main storyline, so it's not plausible for V to use it as a driving factor for looking for friends and equipment for better part of MQ.

I summarized, but right at after the heist, when meeting with Goro at Tom's Diner, it's already question to fight against Arasaka to find Hellman. So at this moment, it's already sure, it wouldn't be a health walk. And so on along the main quest, like take down an AV from Kang Toa (according to Rogue/Panam won't be easy...), infiltrating on the Arasaka park, meet Hanako with potentially Oda on the path, enter in the GIM full of Animals,...

 

[pliskards]

I talk for me, but my V have reasons.
My V want to earn money, to buy or loot better weapons/cyberwares/stuffs and to meet some friends/allies, with the objective to not die stupidly by a bullet while trying to find a way to survive... So in my mind, if V assault the Arasaka tower with the stuff that she had at the beginning, it's sure, she would find a way to die, not a way to survive
Exactly the same in most of games for me and TW3 obviously. In my mind, in TW3, if I was Geralt, the bloody baron would say me right at the beginning where was Ciri, under torture if needed with Yen help (I don't have time for your family problems, dude...)

Edit : To maybe take a closer example, in RDR2 when Arthur was near death (almost useless to eat, very underweighted... you really feel that it's the end...) it didn't stop me from going hunting, fishing, exploring and walking around...

It is interesting to mention RDR2 because that is another game in a different time period where you are riding horses and traveling by foot, riding a train...

Rather than zooming around in super advanced cars, with a cell phone and things of that nature.

One of those settings enforces the idea that things are going to go slower, because the world is moving slower. The other enforces a faster pace... because the world around you is moving at a lot faster pace.

 

[Netrunner2go]

No, people are upset that most of the side content is unlocked after the heist, so there's no good way to roleplay an actual mercenary and do these quests, that CDPR designed and put into the game for players to experience, without feeling total disconection from main story and V's terminal state.

actually this - that's why already clean watson all the time even before meeting dex, after the heist I mostly clean the rest of the world (ncpd/sidequests) before going to Tom's Diner. After Sidecontent I play the story in one run more or less. Personally for me the part to make exp as mercenary feels like missing. I like the montage but I would love to have more connection to the several scenes... clubbing with a friend, first fixer runs for Padre, Mama Wells house etc....

 

[Czembro]

Edit : To maybe take a closer example, in RDR2 when Arthur was near death (almost useless to eat, very underweighted... you really feel that it's the end...) it didn't stop me from going hunting, fishing, exploring and walking around...

As you just said it didn't stopped you from doing those things, but that doesn't mean that Arthur doing those things in his current state was a logical and plausible thing to have had happened. And as I said, that's OK - you like to play that way, you are not bothered by pretty obvious inconsistency in such action - you do you. What I'm trying to postulate here is for games like CP77 to give room for those who don't care for consistence and logic and for those who do, especially when those games are designed around the idea of player doing side content.

 

[LeKill3rFou]

It is interesting to mention RDR2 because that is another game in a different time period where you are riding horses and traveling by foot, riding a train...

I can quote other ones easily. I seem to me quite close, because Arthur is near death for most of the end of the game, from when the doc tells him he has tuberculosis. But oddly, like in Cyberpunk, his condition remains stable as long as you doing "side content" and only gets worse when/after quests

 

[Czembro]

Arthur is near death for most of the end of the game

I haven't played RDR2 yet so tell me this - is the majority of side content in the game locked before this point, or can you do it before Arthur gets terminally ill?

But oddly, like in Cyberpunk, his condition remains stable as long as you doing "side content" and only gets worse when/after quests

Oh FFS, no one expects that the main character will suddenly drop dead during side content as a consequence of their ill state. Simply don't lock side content before the point in main storyline, where stakes suddenly skyrocket from 0 to 100.

 

[LeKill3rFou]

I haven't played RDR2 yet so tell me this - is the majority of side content in the game locked before this point, or can you do it before Arthur gets terminally ill?

You can do it I believe, but it remains a good part of the main story (not sure, I would say a good "one third" of the main story) and you're not warned... It fall on you like a bomb after a quest.

So if you didn't complete absolutely everything before (which represent quite a bunch), either you skip everything and follow only the main quest, either you must "forget" that Arthur is dying. Which it's difficult because you have to eat to stay in shape, i.e maintain your health/stamina at top and at some point, you can barely eat, it even has the opposite effect (and you "see" in third person that Arthur doesn't look good at all)

 

[Czembro]

You can do it I believe, but it remains a good part of the main story (not sure, I would say a good "one third" of the main story) and you're not warned... It fall on you like a bomb after a quest.

So if you didn't complete absolutely everything before (which represent quite a bunch), either you skip everything and follow only the main quest, either you must "forget" that Arthur is dying. Which it's difficult because you have to eat to stay in shape, i.e maintain your health/stamina at top and at some point, you can barely eat, it even has the opposite effect (and you "see" in third person that Arthur doesn't look good at all)

So you are able to do the side content before that point, which lets players that value consistency and logic in their playthrough to roleplay the way they want. CP77 does the opposite, which pretty much proves my point.

[Edited -- SigilFey]

 

[Netrunner2go]

So you are able to do the side content before that point, which lets players that value consistency and logic in their playthrough to roleplay the way they want. CP77 does the opposite, which pretty much proves my point.

No, it won't change the game, but it might change the games that will come next, and I think that it's important to make people realize that just because they don't care for inconsistencies and lack of logic in the games they're playing doesn't mean, that we should let developers take this rather lazy approach in their worldbuilding.

I think its kinda legit to question a story-structure from a praised storyteller if you notice an edge in concept like it is with side missions/fixer gigs and the urgent plot of the msq. it doesn't fit so why shouldn't we talk about it? its not about changing CP77 - what won't happen at all - but maybe it inspires to consider such aspects in their next storytelling. thats all.

 

[GrimReaper801]

I think that it's important to make people realize that just because they don't care for inconsistencies and lack of logic in the games they're playing doesn't mean, that we should let developers take this rather lazy approach in their worldbuilding.

Yeah, no, you won't make people realize anything about a game related matter over the internet. I called it a few pages back but really it's just history repeating itself.

These conversations never lead anywhere. Never.

People get entrenched in their positions and refuse to acknowledge anything as worthy outside their own views. It's a well documented phenomenon in life and it gets exponentially worse over the internet.

It's why I read this thread for the lolz but don't participate.

 

[Mybrokenenglish]

It is interesting to mention RDR2 because that is another game in a different time period where you are riding horses and traveling by foot, riding a train...

And TBC could take years to kill someone and definitely there was no cure to be found in early 1900. You get sick, you die eventually.

I'm sure someone roleplayed Arthur as a glorious Nobel price winner scientist, but that's not what tha game is about.

Post automatically merged: Jun 10, 2022

I haven't played RDR2 yet so tell me this - is the majority of side content in the game locked before this point, or can you do it before Arthur gets terminally ill?

Side content is really "side content" in RDR2, it's not an RPG with loot levels and shit. It's very few missions and activities, most of them are there just to get more in touch with Arthur's "friends".
Interesting enough, you can roleplay more in RDR2 than in most of so called "action RPGs" but that's subject for a different topic

Post automatically merged: Jun 10, 2022

No, it won't change the game, but it might change the games that will come next, and I think that it's important to make people realize that just because they don't care for inconsistencies and lack of logic in the games they're playing doesn't mean, that we should let developers take this rather lazy approach in their worldbuilding.

I lost my hopes that Devs give a single fuck about this on December 10th 2020.

And definitely not fanboys who think their favourite game is perfect (not referring to anyone or any game in particular, just speaking in general)

 

[pliskards]

In addition -

There could be simple checks and balances put in place to explain certain things people find off putting about having to do the side content.

One thing I mentioned earlier in the thread was that when you want to leave to another continent in The Witcher 3 it forces you to gather up a bunch of money before you can do so - because the captain is going to charge you for your ride. It encourages you do side content because they put something in that makes it make sense.

In Cyberpunk 2077 there are plenty of opportunities to do that. You have to fight a giant corporation with advanced weapons and stuff? That is going to be a costly endeavor - before you can do that you need 50,000 eddies or something like that in order to stock up on supplies, weapons, vehicles, etc.... and if you don't then the mission becomes significantly more difficult or something like that.

There are plenty of things they could do to make doing side content make more sense in the world. Hell, they could have a quest line or something like that where for enough money someone would even try surgery on you to help with the chip... even if it fails and you still have to do it anyways, it would be a good reason to go out, do side content and farm eddies.

They just didn't do it. And they are things I think they could still implement rather easily... (Like the above suggestions I just made.)

Is that super well thought out? No. Because I did it in ten minutes. But ideas like that could be fine tuned. It's not like the ship captain in the Witcher 3 was some grand story or idea. It was simple as could be and accomplished a lot.

 

[LeKill3rFou]

One thing I mentioned earlier in the thread was that when you want to leave to another continent in The Witcher 3 it forces you to gather up a bunch of money before you can do so - because the captain is going to charge you for your ride. It encourages you do side content because they put something in that makes it make sense.

In Cyberpunk 2077 there are plenty of opportunities to do that. You have to fight a giant corporation with advanced weapons and stuff? That is going to be a costly endeavor - before you can do that you need 50,000 eddies or something like that in order to stock up on supplies, weapons, vehicles, etc.... and if you don't then the mission becomes significantly more difficult or something like that.

Just a detail about the comparaison
TW3 > Destination: Skellige - Captain Wolverstone > 1,000 crowns > Very easy.
Cyberpunk > Ghost Town - Rogue > 15,000 eddies > Very easy.

 

[BabaBooey88]

but it might change the games that will come next,...

Highly doubtful I'm afraid. In this game you purchase hand-me-down vehicles from fixers like they're your extended relatives after you reach a certain street cred level...cuz reasons. The city was laid out well enough that dealerships could have been dotted across the map or you could have an automated service on the home kiosk that you order rides from, they drive themselves up to your garage - Cut corners in a sensible way at least. Perhaps they could have elaborated on the lore of why you buy vehicles from fixers, washed titles, weapons service, a bit of the john wick underworld treatment could've helped... Something.

They did none of these things. Either calls from team members that this was a silly, lazy idea were ignored or this idea went from brainfart to full implementation unchallenged. If they haven't all left by then; These are the people who will be in charge of the sequel.

“I don’t think that the Sonic or the Elden Ring open-world game will [police chases] have it”

Yeah...

that we should let developers take this rather lazy approach in their worldbuilding.

I understand and agree. I agree with your critiques, but there's really nothing anyone can do about that beyond not buying a game until you have a real idea what's in it. Do not pre-order or Day One. EVER. I had that rule and I broke it for this game figuring the chances were low I would be disappointed because I'm easy sell for the genre and the game's premise. Oops. I get that it sucks to spoil the mystery. That's just the way it is. Maybe they'll get it right with the sequel, just keep what happened 'last time' in mind when 'next time' comes around.

 

[Ydiss2077]

Initial point (because the thread appears to no longer be about the topic): The OP clearly didn't play both CP2077 and NMS on day one if they think CP2077's developmental story was anything like NMS, enough to even bother comparing the two games.

Second point (because the thread appears to now be about the story line being "flawed" due to the hurry up and take your time dichotomy): The best thing about open world games is that the plot (at least the order in which it can play out, if you include all the sub stories) is driven by the player. As such, the length of time it takes for V to hit critical state with the engram is exactly the length of time it takes for my V to do everything they want before they decide to go to waste 5 minutes talking to Hanaka again. Ultimately, V's "ticking clock" has no clock. There is nothing telling us exactly how long we have left and that's it. End of this discussion: It's not part of the game, it's just part of the story.

Urgency is an important story telling tool but in computer games the worst thing a developer can do in an open world game is to use urgency to force the player to not do what they want to do. You'll find very few open world games where the player's experience is impacted by any kind of quest/mission/story urgency. Most games have this same dichotomy because... and I'll let you into this little secret...

These are games. Not books or films. There's no two hour limit. And many games do the whole "hurry up!" without needing you to hurry up, unless the game presents you with an actual clock that determines how much time you have left. The film will take the viewer to its conclusion when the film is done but the player usually has the control for most of the story. And unless it's a scene-by-scene on rails game (and they do exist and they're fine exactly as they are) the developers should not be restricted by the freedoms they give the player by only ever using story telling that ignores any sort of urgency whatsoever.

It should be understood that the urgency is there and should be fit around the fact that we're playing a game and that it's our choice how much urgency we wish to apply to it. Remeber.

It's a game. Games are played. But they should be allowed to have urgency in the story without the need to necessarily enforce that urgency (or do away with urgency altogether because of some arbitrary rule some randos make up that it doesn't fit game play).

 

[Mybrokenenglish]

) the developers should not be restricted by the freedoms they give the player by only ever using story telling that ignores any sort of urgency whatsoever.

Imho you choose the story according to the type of game you want to make and vice versa. IF you really want to push this much on urgency in an open world game, though, at least try to mitigate and offer moments to the player when the game literally tell them "now you have time to do whatever you want, come back when you're ready, no hurry". It's just a matter of good writing and good planning within game design.

 

[Guest 3847602]

Imho you choose the story according to the type of game you want to make and vice versa.

They have.

"now you have time to do whatever you want, come back when you're ready, no hurry"

That is a complete opposite of what, if not 100%, then at least 95% of story-driven games are doing. They could have made Vic say something other than "few weeks to live", but completely removing urgency from main story sounds terrible.



Players are given the incentive to do mercenary work and collect money - V needs upgrades and Rogue asks for 15K eddies in return for her help.

 

[pliskards]

These are games. Not books or films. There's no two hour limit.

Exactly... and the people who disagree with the way the story was presented just think that it should have been ordered differently.

This seems to undermine the rest of your point. They don't have to turn to urgency immediately in their story, but they did. And some people disagree with that. They also think that if the main story clocks in around 25 hours that certain events should have happened later in that 25 hour time period (because the main story is more like a book - it does have pretty static amount of time).

Using your way of reasoning they could have literally said any amount of time and it is fine because ultimately it's our game. Vic or another doctor could have said "You have twenty minutes at best to live..." and then I could have gone and done 90 hours of side content, 25 hours of main story content and it would still make sense because it is a video game and urgency is a story telling mechanic... or something.