I agree. RPG's should be based on character skill, not player skill. As soon as player skill is the deciding factor then it's just another action game. Which we have a billion of. Good RPG's are hard to find.
You could use a system that's based on locking on to the target where the player does not aim, but simply chooses a target to focus on, locks on to it, and shoots when wanted to at a level of accuracy based on the PC's skill with the relevant weapon and other modifiers (like distance, movement and lighting). If the shot misses, it hits something behind or around the chosen target. And to emulate the PnP's 3.2 second rounds, the player might want to hold the triggerfinger for a while to get better chances of hitting (again, based on the PC's relevant skill, equipement and envirinmentak modifiers).
It's real time, somewhat actiony (for the masses) and there's still player skill involved in positioning, choosing targets, choosing when to shoot; but like in a proper RPG, the task of hitting something - the job of the characters skill - is based on the how the player has built his character. You could throw in a tactical pause too to let the player evaluate the situation.
Last edited:
IMO RPGs can also be action games so long as one is still assuming the role of a chatacter and making consequential choices for that character. I feel like sometimes we humans over-categorize things. Action oriented combat is much more fun IMO than turn based combat or combat that is mostly determined by stats. Making the players skill matter makes the experience much more immersive. You feel more like you're there.
If it's all about how well one twitches, they might as well drop the skills out from the equation from distorting the experience of being in control as much as possible. It'd be easier to balance and there'd not be a nulled character system that does nothing relevant. I wouldn't buy that game though, but at least it would be an honest action-story-experience.
Pure rpg combat is awful just look at Morrowind or the original Dues Ex. Skill based combat systems are much better than stat based because it rewards player skill(if done correctly that is). Skyrim or Fallout 4 are poor examples of skill based combat since Skyrim has awful melee combat with poor clunky animations that is brain less easy and Fallout 4 is just an average shooter that is ironically crippled by rpg mechanics that cause bullet sponge syndrome. The more skill based and difficult the combat is the better. The rpg genre imo is filled with awful combat systems including many classics.
Last edited:
RPG need revolution. Action is everything, the market already proved that. 30 years over Final Fantasy one of the most famous RPG in video game history become action driven. People like control real time NOT character build simulator, If someone like character build simulator The Sims is a good choice.
Well, awful according to you and people who like a certain kind of combat. I liked Deus Ex combat, I liked Fallout 4 combat. And I really liked how your stats mattered.
"skill" based - twitch skill, not character build, tactical planning or resource management - shooters are both exclusionary, ( you have to have that skill), against the idea of an RPG, (in an RPG, Stephen Hawking can play a character who fights as well as Captain America or Bruce Lee or a Navy SEAL - anyone who wants to play that character has that opportunity) and boring, mostly because I've played -so many- of them.
I like Counterstrike and I tolerate Dark Souls, but in an RPG, I prefer Fallout New Vegas, Fallout 4, any of the DX games, ( RPG lite) or Bloodlines.
Because that's more interesting and more fun to me. And in the end, it's your opinion that matters to you. Not the legion of hidden shooter masses hoping CP2077 will be a shooter. It won't.
Yeaah..did you read the story where the Solo caught the bullet in his hand with his wired reflexes? From Solo of Fortune? Some of the descriptors weren't real well thought out.
Now, I'm not saying the world slowing down is a bad idea, ( hell, I'm all for bullet time), but I am saying that if you have Reflexes of 5 and you get Kerenzikov, you will only have REF of 7 for init purposes. 7 isn't really "time slows down". I mean, it might appear that way to the new user, but that implies real people with REF of 7-10 see everything in Matrix-style slow time. They don't.
Last edited:
Why exactly, if you don't mind me asking?
I don't see why some people see here more action oriented combat here as some kind of immediate catastrophe...it's fairly obvious what pro's and cons there are to each approach.
And since CDPR is creating AAA title, it's production values are better suited for action combat Imo..."just another tps " is as valid as "just another turn based rpg"( of which there are actually even more on the market).
Anyway, for weapons: Each skill tree should offer unique abilities, really add different appeal and variance to each playstyle.
Like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rfDvqgD_t7k
Leave the passives out of it...it's better to have slower, more refined and with more meaningful abilities system than cluttering it with overpowered or useless +x% bonuses.
No system is going to be perfect, it's really a matter of "does it work reasonably well".
My problem with bullet-time is that while it may slow the action it's still a player vice character dependent system.
I think that's more dramatic licence on the part of whoever wrote the description then an actual effect.
And think about it, you've spent your whole life up until you get one of these reflex boosters installed doing things at the speed of your reactions, suddenly everything changes. I'd imagine someone who's just gotten one of these much like an infant learning how to control it's own body. In time it'll become so natural you don't even think about it, but not at first.
You could but this might be a little too hands-off, lock your target, watch your character fight. This is fine in a tactical wargame where you're controlling units not individuals.
An action or FPS game can certainly have RPG elements, but as soon as player vice character skills and reactions become the determining factor it's no longer a traditional RPG. And I think most of the people that buy CP2077 think they'll be buying an RPG not an action game or shooter.
Agreed, there's zero need for character skills in an FPS. And like you I won't be buying it because I have zero interest in FPS games.
If this is important to you buy an action game or FPS, don't expect every game to be an action or FPS game because you prefer them.
Since you've apparently decided you speak for me you're 100% wrong.
The market proves various types of games sell, some better then others, and a good many action and FPS games on the market bombed spectacularly so that's hardly a guarantee of a good and well selling game.
Last edited:
OK, the game's design director already said it will more action-like, "The game mechanics are totally different on paper, they don't work in video games because they would be super boring" By Mateusz Kanik, thank goodness CDPR has a good leader who knows what's is meaningful thing in video game.
http://www.ign.com/articles/2013/05/01/cyberpunk-2077-putting-the-punk-back-into-cyberpunk
http://www.ign.com/articles/2013/05/01/cyberpunk-2077-putting-the-punk-back-into-cyberpunk
Actually I'm a RL programmer and game designer, and I totally agree a straight translation of CP2020 game mechanics won't work. But that hardly means it has to become an action game or FPS.
There are other options, and in this thread we're exploring them.
Awesome. Hopefully some of our ideas will be implemented into Cyberpunk 2077.Interesting topic guys, has been a good read.
Weellll...probably not. Witcher and Cyberpunk fans are going to be more common than Cyberpunk 2020 fans, I think. By far. So they will expect action RPG.
I do feel you keep hardlining the, "if any player skill is involved, it's not an RPG!" line. But you have no issue with players who are better at tactics or chracter building or intuitive task selection having an advantage over those who get killed a lot because they don't have those skills.
That also seems unfair.
Some players are just better at games than others. Whether they be RTS, TB or FPS. You suck at FPS so you don't want it ( also because you are determined about your definition of RPG and insist it is correct). But some people will suck at TB ( Me! I lack a certain patience) and TB or modified TB or anything involving planning and non immediate perspective will suck for them.
Hey, I die in Torment. Too much wheeee! and then consequences.
The trick is to find a method that works for both you and I and everyone else on both sides of this divide.
I'm not sure what you're asking. Better not have any extra systems than a halfworking (if even that) one.
It's been done to death with RPG's in the past 10 or so years and it always works the same... badly and feeling loose and halfdeveloped because the games insist on the same audience as the "not-RPG" action games and have to cut back on the RPG side. This includes the nu-Fallouts, Witchers, Mass Effects and all.
No, no. Precisely not "watch your character fight", but rather "make him fight". I mean more about the sort of "press and hold" type of active target lock. You point at a target, press and hold RMB (for as long as you wish), press LMB when you want to shoot. Maneuver and switch targets at will, and at no point just "watch things happen" like in a RtWP scenario.
Last edited:
Don't think anyone's really straight-faced expecting rather than simply hoping.
Oh really, action not guarantee well selling game, but all well selling game in modern AAA market almost have common element —— action. It's not sufficient but necessary. CDPR said they want Cyberpunk be more success than Witcher 3, so which RPG sell more than witcher 3. Data said Skyrim or Fallout or Final Fantasy , unfortunately both of them already be or will be action driven game. unfortunately the most popular AAA game nowdays is GTA this is action game. Cyberpunk is a mature game, it will dangerous and full of violence, no matter eventually How Cyberpunk's combat implemention, one thing is clear it will has heavy action elements —— CDPR themselves said more than once.
In my case i don't suck at FPS at all.. And i am not playing call of duty but Arma series where the ballistic actually behave in total different manner than other FPS it have actually real like mechanics on it... Caliber,Type of weapon,Materials are taken on consideration in arma when you are shooting... Also the bullets have a speed factor once shot they tend to slow down after a certain distance.. ((depending on the weapon)) to arch then and fall on the ground....
My main concern is see a nice system turned off completely in favour of action.... This for sure would kill the Cyberpunk feel to me... Fight are supposed to be the last resource and be extremely dangerous... And when you create a separation between RPG mechanics rule in favour to actually Gamepad acrobacy you will kill the pen and paper feel of the game...
That's not totally black of course...
As i told is perfectly viable to have an hybrid system Aka Bloodlines... where you skill and stats actually matter in combat....
I'm not sure if "what if player X does not know how to play" is a valid counter when talking about genre-specific mechanical characteristics. If one does not understand the mechanics, one learns or moves on to another game which he does have a grasp of. That has nothing on the "player skill versus character skill" argument.
I've heard that song being sang for years on countless occasions. It's a very agreeable song and I do sing it too -- there's always some way to do it -- but I've grown weary of the optimism of it since it never tends to happen. The middleground is never found - and when gotten close, it's deemed clumsy and then there's big and clear tilt towards the side opposite of "RPG side" and the "trick to find the mid-ground" is next to forgotten along with the rest of the systemic side of RPG gameplay.
Really unfortunate, that. There'd be huge amounts of potential in refurbishing gameplay-types of the old without homogenizing it all into a singular mold of either FPS or TPS (S for "shooter" or "stabber" relative to what the game is about).
Last edited:
Yes I do hardline "if any player skill is involved, it's not an RPG!", but you should add the word "traditional" in there.
These days the distinction between action, FPS, and RPG has become very blurred and one way to differentiate them is to stress that FPS games, and sometimes to a lesser extent action games are about player skill. Also a fair number of the newer posters here probably have limited to no experience with or knowledge of traditional RPGs, after all Diablo was an RPG wasn't it?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diablo_(video_game)
---------- Updated at 08:10 AM ----------
You make the exact same mistake so many game publishers make (*cough* E/A), you assume a game sells well because it's an action or open world game. Nothing could be further from the truth. Games sell well because they are good games, not because of the style of the game. Admittedly some game markets are smaller then others but a lot of this is due to exposure, people like to play games similar to ones they have previously played. Does that make those types of games "better"? By no means, all it means is they sell more copies.
Exactly!
If you let player skill govern combat in CP2077 those that are good at it will see combat as the optimal solution to problems in the Cyberpunk world. You're actually doing them a disservice by not giving them the game Cyberpunk should be, dark, gritty, dangerous. One where the corps control your world with financial and paramilitary force and you have to outsmart them because you sure as hell can't outgun them.
Last edited: