Combat system

+
Turn based games don't work that well on pads.

That's not true. There was also a time when FPS' and realtime strategies didn't work with pads (and to someone like me, they still don't), but they are now commonplace. Everything works with pads now.


The core traditional rpgs crowd is not that big.

The ones yearning for those games out loud isn't, but there's nothing to say that an average Steve-the-teen who's never touched an RPG wouldn't get excited about a well made game like that. People are not that rigid.


Btw, I don't think anybody here wants a pure shooter

I've seen posts that lean heavily on that side. Majority (around here) probably doesn't, but there's always people going against novelty ideas like turnbased with arguments like "TB doesn't sell" instead of "I don't like TB" (what's with that? why should the customer care about sells if all he wants is a fun product?).
 
Last edited:
That's not true. There was also a time when FPS' and realtime strategies didn't work with pads (and to someone like me, they still don't), but they are now commonplace. Everything works with pads now.




The ones yearning for those games out loud isn't, but there's nothing to say that an average Steve-the-teen who's never touched an RPG wouldn't get excited about a well made game like that. People are not that rigid.

Well, there is plenty of very rigid people. Even here some people said, if game is gonna be fps they won't buy it. There are people who thing the best thing about dialog is a ability to skip it. Besiedes i personally don't think turn based combat is essential for a game to be rpg.
 
Well, there is plenty of very rigid people. Even here some people said, if game is gonna be fps they won't buy it.

There sure is, and I'm one of those who's probably not buying if it's an FPS (at least not before a GOG sale) - I have a huge selection of those games, new and old and upcoming, already to choose from if I feel like it, and all better suited for the task than an RPG. But the question is about the common gamer who'll pick up anything that's trending.

Besiedes i personally don't think turn based combat is essential for a game to be rpg.

It's not. I would say it's optimal (and to me, most fun) to produce proper high end roleplaying, but the main thing is about how well the characterbuild relfects the gameplay, how well does the game through its systems reflect that you are playing a role instead of just controlling a virtual costume like in, say, Super Mario.
 
Last edited:
Is not about being rigid... Is about having an RPG expecting to be an RPG....

Don't take this the wrong way... I like FPS too.. i am a proud owner of arma 3 but i am not pretending to turn arma series in a RPG... Some people instead all across the forum were indeed pretending this game to be another FPS in past some one was even disappointed this game were not a MMO not even mentioning..

People are trowing idea in like.. Levels... Perks... Powers... things that don't belong in cyberpunk there are not levels in cyberpunk all is done in a stat skill based system and you earn points to apply to them once you completed your task or session....

Cyberpunk is cyberpunk... is not mass effect..

Everyone here knows that his game was never meant to be turn based.. When the first trailer come out a lot of people opened a lot of pools for speculating even discussing things... Cd project wanted to make a proper Cyberpunk game.. Mike Pondmith accepted to do this because the cd project guys were fan of the source material and felt confident they could deliver a title that has the cyberpunk feel on it....

Fact is... Most of the argument introduced by user in this forum maybe because they was not knowing the source material at all.. Were things that could turn a Cyberpunk game is something that have a total different feel and not cyberpunk....

Just remember this game is based off from a pen and paper RPG... So in the end seeing it turning in a FPS or pure action game will broke this feel and the title will have only the title as Cyberpunk but not the feel... And that is a matter of concerning..

So stay sure if turns out to become a pure action game or an fps... I will gladly not buy it.....Because i expect a cyberpunk rpg.
 
Last edited:
Don't take this the wrong way... I like FPS too..

There's nothing wrong with FPS'. they're good and fun for what they try to offer and achieve. Those games just don't offer the experience an RPG should. Just like whe you have an 4X game or an RTS, you don't expect to play it like a first person shooter.
 
There's nothing wrong with FPS'. they're good and fun for what they try to offer and achieve. Those games just don't offer the experience an RPG should. Just like whe you have an 4X game or an RTS, you don't expect to play it like a first person shooter.
Sometimes i think even people don't even bother to read the unofficial FAQ they may be Unofficial but what is there is basically all the dev told about their intentions on the game..
 
Actually, if you look at them - and I mean really look at them, past the surface - most of those are not all that diffent. On the contrary, they are quite similiar to one another. Even disturbingly so in certain cases.

That really, really is a massive oversimplification of their game mechanics across the board...and same could be even more be said for recent crpg's like Pillars/DOS/Wasteland II or when comparing all the other crpg's from Infinity era.

Problem is when you make an action focused RPG and you start streamlining character skill and stats.. then you add dialog wheel and voice acting... In the end you will deliver a title that have way more less depth than the past...

No...combat based on mechanics from action games does not immediately make a "lesser rpg". New Vegas or Bloodlines are both, case in point here.

How would having better animation quality, AI, sounds, hit feedback, etc... negatively impact roleplaying aspect in those games? ( Aside from more budget/time allocated to this)

/QUOTE]
Now some people here don't even seem they want an RPG.... They want controller acrobacy... First person shooting as first choice.... A lot of action...

Where exactly anyone said, that this is supposed to be futuristic GTA or CoD? This only relates about combat system and what base mechanics from other games CDPR can look up to.

And you really should try and play more action games if you think it all comes down to "controller acrobacy"...some of my favorite action games like MGSV puts many rpgs to shame when it comes to number of tactical options they offer. There is no rigid, dogmatic boundary between different genres here that action equates dumb and simple.

Seriously. The idea that modern games sell a ton because they have action-y combat and not because they suddenly have 50+ million dollar marketing budgets and hype campaigns backing them is confusing correlation with causation on a comical scale.

That's like saying World Chess Tournament would be as popular as Football world cup, if it had the same marketing. Publishers simply go where the money is and majority of players prefer real time action games next to turn based...there is no conspiracy here: People know exactly the difference between them and when it comes down to it, they're simply more enjoyable to play (for most).

making a game like that intrinsically is less complex and shallower than a game targeted for a specific audience with higher expectations

So if in next TES Bethesda brought back stats and medium armor from Morrowind, added more factions, connected quest lines with c&c, better designed skill tree's, etc, etc...average "casual" player's brain would somehow liquify from all this "complexity"?
I don't buy it...true that far more $ goes into world size and graphics than it should( next to gameplay mechanics), but it's silly to think this would be too "complicated" for an average gamer...this isn't quantum physics we're dealing with.

It's not. I would say it's optimal (and to me, most fun) to produce proper high end roleplaying, but the main thing is about how well the characterbuild relfects the gameplay, how well does the game through its systems reflect that you are playing a role instead of just controlling a virtual costume like in, say, Super Mario.

Until they release something concrete, it's pointless to throw around hyperboles of CP turning into another generic action shooter.

Mount and Blade has more in depth rpg mechanics than a LOT of turn based full blown rpg's while still being based on h&s action mechanics along with a high skill ceiling.
You can shape your character through stats and skills and see their impact on your actions in combat while having your own direct skill as player matter as well...win/win in my book.
 
That really, really snip.

Is not a problem if you improve the smoothes of animation or refine the skill in manner they work well in real time... But when you like most time happened remove skills or come with a perk system or worst of all base the combat mechanic too much around reflex and less about stat and skill is more an action game than an rpg... Because is based too much on player agency and not on the character one... FO4 suffered a lot of it... Despite the game provide different illusion of choices on the dialogue is impossible to roleplay a character.....

And yes there were people even in the past years that wanted turn this on a MMO or a shooter even some suggestion given have no room in the cyberpunk genre at all... What i see here is just people asking for things to make the game more and more actiony and less RPG.....

This is a perfect example how a nice in depth saga can be dumbed down...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JweTAhyR4o0
 
This feels like being stuck on a planet filled with all sorts of weird aliens and your universal translator isn't working. :p
Ok, I'm done in this thread. Farewell, my fellow aliens:

View attachment 79080

:welcome:
 

Attachments

  • live-long-and-prosper.jpg
    live-long-and-prosper.jpg
    42.6 KB · Views: 32
Lol. Until we get concrete info, we'll be going around in circles in this thread.

"until we get concrete info".

AhaahahahH!

You think it'll stop after that? Noooo.

It's going around in circles, true, but it's also exposing facets of this discussion that may not have been seen by developers. Or other players. Just so long as people don't repeat arguments and as long as they make an attempt to see the other person's view.

This is also a -really- tough call. I mean, really tough. I don't envy Kyle his job. You can satisfy a lot, but at the expense of, I think, quality RP opportunities, or you can satisfy less and maybe shoot for a truer "character-based" experience. Or you can try for a middle ground somehwere along the way and risk satisfying...who knows.

They've tried combat differently each Witcher game with varied results. They get shit for it being the weakest part of their games, but they try for SO MUCH. They try to be immersive and well-written and beautiful and role-playey and exciting and interesting and smart and consistent and moving and challenging and appealing and...

SO much.

Games like Torment or Mass Effect try for less. Dark Souls too. They take a niche or two and go there. CDPR shoots high, baby.

Combat is one of the most game-y parts of their work and like many game-y things, it's very subject to user prejudice. Doesn't make it easy.
 
Is not a problem if you improve the smoothes of animation or refine the skill in manner they work well in real time... But when you like most time happened remove skills or come with a perk system or worst of all base the combat mechanic too much around reflex and less about stat and skill is more an action game than an rpg... Because is based too much on player agency and not on the character one... FO4 suffered a lot of it... Despite the game provide different illusion of choices on the dialogue is impossible to roleplay a character.....

And yes there were people even in the past years that wanted turn this on a MMO or a shooter even some suggestion given have no room in the cyberpunk genre at all... What i see here is just people asking for things to make the game more and more actiony and less RPG.....

This is a perfect example how a nice in depth saga can be dumbed down...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JweTAhyR4o0


Were talking about pure combat here not quest design, choices, leveling, dialogue, attributes, skills, builds, stats, etc... Making the combat more skill based and action oriented by definition is better especially for Action RPG which CP will probably be. All pure non skill based combat systems are fuckin garbage just look at Morrowind. The Souls series or Dragons Dogma core combat mechanics are skill based but they left a lot rpg elements in the gameplay end as well. Its a great a balance and these games have some of best combat in the Action RPG genre. Nobody is asking for the removal of attributes, skills and different builds but the basic combat mechanics should be skill based, challenging and rewarding. Being stuck in the past with Morrowinds awful combat system is a terrible thing for CP.
 
Last edited:
LOVE IT !

P.S.
I'd love to play Arma 3 but I suck so bad at hitting anything in FPS I'd be a liability not an asset in multiplayer.

---------- Updated at 10:10 AM ----------

You have to consider different platforms as a factor too. Turn based games don't work that well on pads. The reality is, games that do very well market them to very diverse audience. Skyrims, Fallout sell well because they go after shooter and open world actions games audience. The core traditional rpgs crowd is not that big. You have example of very good games like Xcom trying out consoles and it wasn't a big success despite really good review. It was excellent game with decent marketing (not close to big boys of course but still visible one). Look at Dragon age Origins. The combat was hated by console gamers (thats why they changed it in second game) but loved by pc crowd. Inquisition tries to cater to both crowds with mediocre results. The are things that you cannot change.
That's why I keep saying you can appeal to both crowds by having both systems built into the game, no single system can possibly do so. The best you can do with a single system is mediocre.

---------- Updated at 10:36 AM ----------

So if in next TES Bethesda brought back stats and medium armor from Morrowind, added more factions, connected quest lines with c&c, better designed skill tree's, etc, etc...average "casual" player's brain would somehow liquify from all this "complexity"?
I don't buy it...true that far more $ goes into world size and graphics than it should( next to gameplay mechanics), but it's silly to think this would be too "complicated" for an average gamer...this isn't quantum physics we're dealing with.
No it probably wouldn't.
But they'd lose a fair percentage of their sales because the game is no longer "pick up and play". Look at Dragons Age, the stat/skill system has become simpler and simpler each version because the mass market doesn't want to "think", they want to "do".
 
Last edited:

227

Forum veteran
You have to consider different platforms as a factor too. Turn based games don't work that well on pads.
And that's why the Fire Emblem, Final Fantasy Tactics/Tactics Ogre (and the million clone games), early Final Fantasy games, and a million other turn-based franchises that have been exclusively on consoles have sold so poorly that they've only received a bazillion sequels each.

Sarcasm aside (though seriously—some of you might want to research some of this stuff beyond your gut feeling on the matter), I've seen turn-based phone games work with nothing but touch controls. If you can't make a turn-based game work well on a controller, you're simply not trying. There are countless examples of it working flawlessly.

Look at Dragon age Origins. The combat was hated by console gamers (thats why they changed it in second game) but loved by pc crowd.
The first game outsold the second game a week after its release on despite being older. EDIT: Forgot to mention that those were console numbers. Obviously it wasn't hated that much.

It wasn't bad on console, either. It just suffered from a clunky mess of wheels that struggled to fulfill the job of menus. Loading times weren't great on the PS3, either.
 
Last edited:
So I think all the discussion the last few pages has made it clear (as if it wasn't already) no single combat system can satisfy everyone, at best you can create some sort of hybred system that disappoints everyone.

So is there any reason anyone can think of why a game can't have both an FPS and an RPG style combat system?

YES, it's a lot more work for CDPR, but having a dual system would certainly be groundbreaking and could, heck would, make the market and the competition really sit up and take notice.
 
I just want to point out that CDPR clearly plans to implement the real time handling of vehicles, including vehicles that may be involved in combat encounters.

I sincerely doubt a turn based system will be implemented on that basis alone, unless they do some ultra slick version of real-with-pause.
 
I can't think of a single reason why an RPG (character based) combat system has to be turn based. Real-time with pause, yes, turn based no.

As to driving, as long as it's not all high-speed racing with Bond movie acrobatics I don't see a problem. OK there may be a handful off "Mad Max" style situations in the Barrens but these should be the excpetion not the rule. The Barrens are a district not the entire world.
 
Nah even i think turn based is good for party based games like shadowrun.. The optimal would be a real time system in third person that take accounts of the character skill and stats..

(OT)For Suhlira

Well maybe you could instead find yourself comfortable for arma... is one of those game that if you run and shoot not getting covers you will die... XD
 
Top Bottom