Combat: FPS vs non-FPS (attn: Devs and Marketing please)

+
Combat: FPS vs non-FPS (attn: Devs and Marketing please)

I'm going to break the rules and take it upon myself to speak for the silent majority.

While there are many good things to be said for First Person Shooter (FPS) games, I don't believe FPS is well suited to computer Role Playing Games (RPGs).
RPGs are by their very nature about the character you create. As such the characters skills (or lack thereof) should determine your ability hit something in combat not the players ability (or lack thereof) to react to and aim at opponents.

An excellent example of this in Cyberpunk is “Wired Reflexes”. A character with this modification is suppose to be able to react faster then human norms. With FPS type combat this mod is pointless as the players ability to react is not effected by the characters mod.

The FPS crowd will cite (loudly) many reasons why computer games MUST be FPS:
1) It makes the game more real/exciting/intense. It also makes it unplayable by older or handicapped players.
2) I won't buy your game if it's not FPS (the loss of one sale will, of course, bankrupt the games maker).
3) I'll tell all my friends not to buy your game (personally I rather doubt this sort of person has many friends).
4) I'll sue you if you don't make your game FPS (yeah … right …).
5) I'll cry to my mommie if the game isn't FPS (presumably she, unlike most people, cares what you think).
((FPS-or-Nothing folks: If I neglected to include your reason(s) why the game MUST be FPS please post them. I'm sure they'll receive all the consideration they're due.))

If it's impossible/impractical to make the game appeal to both FPS and non-FPS gamers consider the following:
1) The FPS player will quite probably buy/play an non-FPS game that's otherwise well made.
2) FPS combat would make certain character mods (i.e. “Wired Reflexes”) difficult/impossible to implement.
3) Non-FPS combat allows more re-playability as you can create a character with different mods and have a different game-play experience combat wise.

The VATS system used in the Fallout games seems to me to be a truly excellent solution to the FPS vs character skill issue.
As implemented in Fallout VATS provides bonuses to combat, this is unnecessary.
Because the FPS gamer can simply ignore VATS and play the Fallout as an FPS, while the rest of us can use it to allow the characters skills to determine our combat success.
Thus both the FPS and the non-FPS gamer are happy, what more can one ask?
 
I... hated the VATS system..
It was just soo stupid.. Fallout 1, 2 and possible Tactics did it so well because it was a part of the game while Fallout 3...
I hated it. Made it so pointless because it was still just better to aim manually.

But no, Wired Reflexes are not pointless in FPS settings. They'd kick in always either by the press of a button that would slow everything down to it's supposed speed or per automatic when someone opens fire.

I am fine with whatever FPS or TPS or something else they decide to pick with.
All I don't want is a game where my character is standing around waiting to auto-attack and / or requires me to use skills of a skillbar. Like "Chainsaw Arm - Use this to Swing at enemy for 35 Damage. 3 second cooldown" because that is just... Eeeeaaahhh.
 

Aver

Forum veteran
System in Fallout 3 and NV is terrible and trust me. FPS fans aren't happy with it. Also game doesn't have to FPP at all. It may be TPP.
 
It will probably be TPP, given CDPR's history and the promise-ish of character customization.

In terms of perspective, see our poll: http://www.cyberpunk.net/forum/en/threads/137-Which-view-do-you-prefer Not so silent.

Which is good, because if they were..silent..how would you have heard them in the first case? Are you hearing voices? Has someone messed with yoru cyberaudio?

I missed seeing that poll.
But am overjoyed at the response I'm seeing to it.
Thanks !
 
No problem. Your question also isn't really quite the same as the poll, of course - yours is as gameplay oriented as perspective. And it's hotly debated but generally, you'll be pleased to know, the non-FPS ideal is the one held to. With good reason, I think.
 
absolutely, it doesn't look like we're so silent anymore, especially after the Syndicate debacle... most of us, i for one, are getting sick of this FPS nonsense being forced upon us just because someone wants some of that CoD money... the popularity of games like that is whats given companies the false ideal that FPS is what everyone wants... hopefully more game developers will take suite and listen to their playerbase, EA did not listen despite a large outcry from fans saying please dont make Syndicate FPS, they made it FPS anyway, and it did not sell, and those of us that actualy baught it don't play it much if ever cause its not the Syndicate we know or wanted...
 
Well, I believe that the game will decide.

Are you one your own (with one or 2 brainless followers : Skyrim like) ?
If yes, a FPS may be good enough.
Are you a team with multiple abilities and powers (Mass Effect like) ?
If yes, a 3rd person view is more suitable. With possibly a large FOV and a free cam.
How are orders issued ?
Is there any "initiative" or does the ennemy react only to the player presence ?
Do we need to pause the game to manage the team ?
How are ambushes managed ?

The question is not should it be a FPS or TPS. The view will be dictated by the gameplay.

And yes, Syndicate 2 sucks...
 
The problem with the Syndicate FPS was that it was marketed incorrectly. I don't mind people making spin-off games in different genres, but with Syndicate you had people begging for remakes or proper sequels and then they gave us an FPS. In return if they had given it another title and just set it in the world of syndicate i don't think people had complained as much. Because really, it wasn't that bad , i take the Syndicate FPS over the CoDs, MoHs and Battlefields of the world any day.
 
Deus Ex 1 is way better than Syndicate will ever be. Just because in Deus Ex, there is a story which make the game much more immersive.
 
I'm going to break the rules and take it upon myself to speak for the silent majority.

While there are many good things to be said for First Person Shooter (FPS) games, I don't believe FPS is well suited to computer Role Playing Games (RPGs).

The silent majority, huh? While I see your point I think it's a little assuming that's the opinion of the majority. That may seem so if you visit certain gaming sites. But it's really hard to judge.

I personally welcome the current development towards more emphasis on action (in terms of how combat plays). For me the role playing aspect is the way the story is told, the influence the player has on the outcome and generally player choice. Of course character development is important too but I like the recent approach of using perks rather than statistics that determine your strength in combat.
Don't get me wrong - I like classic RPGs but I also like the more immersive nature of "modern" games.

What kills FPSs for me is the totally insane focus on action as in CoD. But since (good) RPGs don't do that I'm totally fine with first-person-RPGs.

3) Non-FPS combat allows more re-playability as you can create a character with different mods and have a different game-play experience combat wise.

I totally disagree. Go play some Dishonored, Deus Ex (any part), Fallout or even Borderlands - character build makes a huge difference. Plus you get the freedom to play the game any way you want.
If you look at classical non-FPS RPGs like for instance Baldur's Gate - you're choices in character building are minimal compared to modern games and even if you change from fighter to mage the game still plays very similar because the whole mechanic doesn't offer much more.
 
Mm. Syndicate really was marketed poorly, but it was doomed from the get go. It's loyal fan base hated it for not being a strat game, with a few exceptions, ( me) that could forgive the flaws. New players saw little reason to pick up another shooter. Multiplayer was fun, but not incredible.

I quite liked the setting, plot and brain hacking my way to happiness.
 
Third person combat. Preferably done in a way that doesn't make the game a thirdperson shooter.

I'm so fucking tired of FPS games (and action games altogether). Someone, read: CDPR in this case, really needs to make an RPG that is not a damn twitchy FPS/TPS by heart, but offers a glimpse of bold variety to the stagnant gaming market filled with titles that all copy one another in hopes to get a piece from the same cake. I wouldn't want CP to sink in that same swamp.

Firaxis already showed that sometimes risky moves (a turnbased strategygame for the mainstream market) are worth it.
 
There are awesome single player pure first person shooters out there, with great plots, set in great worlds. There are awesome single player third person shooters out there as well. There are awesome single player third person "point, click and let your character shoot" -games out there, which require zero aiming skill from the player. There are awesome single player games out there which incorporate the ability to pause, or have some other way of stopping the action if you feel it's overwhelming you, much like Fallout with it's VATS.

All of those, and any other types of games out there, have their own following. So, whatever Cyberpunk 2077 will be, it will inevitably disappoint everyone else except that one group who got their way. The exceptions for this rule are people who are able to enjoy many different kinds of games. I for example do have my preferences (I'd rather it wasn't a "pause-to-think" type of a game, and I'd rather you needed to know how to move your mouse to hit something), but I don't mind playing other kinds of games as well (for example ME, or perhaps KotOR.)

If you're hoping for the game to be something specific in that regard, then for your sake I hope you're prepared to be disappointed, because most of the people who are expecting something will be.
 
While I don't exactly appreciate the somewhat patronizing tone the OP assumed towards the FPS-or-else people, I generally agree with what he said. If I wanted to play a shooter, I would. There's plenty of choice out there, usually with better gfx and often better combat than any RPG could manage. I want something to test my brain and not my fingers. I want strategic depth both when it comes to picking talents or stats as well as when it comes to making combat decisions.
Choosing what I'm going to shoot first or which cover I'm using does not qualify as "strategic depth" in my book. However "involving" some might find it.
 

If you're hoping for the game to be something specific in that regard, then for your sake I hope you're prepared to be disappointed, because most of the people who are expecting something will be.

I'm always prepared to be disappointed. In fact, the very first thing that comes to my mind these days when it comes to announcements of videogames that I have an interest in (which are but a few) is: "I wonder how badly they'll fuck this nice concept and its potential up in the end?" regardless of who's making the game. That's just the cynic I am. Mostly I'm right (when it comes to my own preferences, obviously), but there are a few delightful surprises every now and then.

I am hoping this game to be something specific, perhaps even something out of the norm of these days, but I'm not really expecting anything.
 
This is now the third thread on this topic....

With the same level of animosity as before.

I honestly hope that they build the game as a TPP game with loving attention to the character animations but, have a FPP option with a well designed HUD system based around the installed cyber options. I want to be able to gaze upon Night City through my character's cyber-optics. Not over his head from behind.
 
Top Bottom