Cyberpunk 2: Let the Game Break

[Cyberdude]

We need to get back to allowing players to fail quests and break their save through common sense mistakes and player agency.

The "gamey" trend of protecting the player from bad or conscious decisions has degraded the gaming experience and immersion for years now.

Given that a player can die and have to reload a save I should be allowed to fail a quest perhaps by mistake or unintended consequences and equally resort to a prior save - IF I WANT TO.

Restore consequences, freedom and player agency. Alllow bad things to happen. Real stakes.

If I choose to fail a dialog roll or decide an NPC annoys me and I shoot them in a diner and fail all their missions or content then LET ME. If it turns out I don't like the consequences I can reload a save. No different than dying. Or changing my build.

We need a world that doesn't feel like a puppet show. No unkillable NPCs. No script blocking actions that otherwise would make sense (e.g. auto locking doors for scripting battles etc).

Let the world be itself.
Let the world breathe.
Let the player feel regrets. Its not a game without that.

Thank you!

 

[LeKill3rFou]

Did you not created the excat same thread not long ago?

Cyberpunk 2: Let the Game Break

We need to get back to the days where a game LET YOU break missions by either killing NPC's or destroying items or dropping quest items etc. Since then, games have introduced all kinds of NANNIES. Tell you exactly where to go., who to talk to. in the dialog it shows you exactly what options to...

forums.cdprojektred.com

 

[devivre]

Threads merged, there’s really no point in opening another thread with the same topic.

 

[rebbit323]

We need to get back to allowing players to fail quests and break their save through common sense mistakes and player agency.

The "gamey" trend of protecting the player from bad or conscious decisions has degraded the gaming experience and immersion for years now.

Given that a player can die and have to reload a save I should be allowed to fail a quest perhaps by mistake or unintended consequences and equally resort to a prior save - IF I WANT TO.

Restore consequences, freedom and player agency. Alllow bad things to happen. Real stakes.

If I choose to fail a dialog roll or decide an NPC annoys me and I shoot them in a diner and fail all their missions or content then LET ME. If it turns out I don't like the consequences I can reload a save. No different than dying. Or changing my build.

We need a world that doesn't feel like a puppet show. No unkillable NPCs. No script blocking actions that otherwise would make sense (e.g. auto locking doors for scripting battles etc).

Let the world be itself.
Let the world breathe.
Let the player feel regrets. Its not a game without that.

Nobody really expected every sequel to be perfect, but letting a game break as much as some posts here describe just makes the conversation so wild. Sometimes when I need a break from all these endless bugs and hotfix chaos I turn to stuff that actually runs clean, like Pinup Nigeria where menus and features just behave the way you expect them to. That contrast really highlights how frustrating it feels when stuff doesn’t work like it should.

Agree!

 

[dadds]

Baldur's Gate 3 proves nothing.

It has the same stipulations as every other game. In many ways, it does less than other games because it doesn't even have a proper "Evil" route because it had so little development time on it. To say nothing about other aspects of the game where it forgets it gave players an option (For example, if you don't tell Jaheria about the Artifact in Act 2 using a very high skill check... She just goes and references you having the Artifact anyway)

Doesn’t have a proper evil route…? Did we actually play the same game? In the end I had my durge murdering every innocent they had on their path, and in the end I ended up becoming a mindflayer…
Dunno feels pretty evil to me. Also the game was absolutely unapologetic most of the time while presenting me with these options.

 

[Taril]

Doesn’t have a proper evil route…? Did we actually play the same game?

Apparently not.

Since the game is reknown for its overall lack of an evil route.

In the end I had my durge murdering every innocent they had on their path, and in the end I ended up becoming a mindflayer…
Dunno feels pretty evil to me.

Murdering innocents isn't really a "Route". It's just an action.

The route still takes you on a linear story to save the day, no matter what you do. Whether you side with the Absolutists or not. It all railroads into taking out the 3 leaders/bypassing them and defeating the Netherbrain.

The only real "Evil" part is the decision to take command of the Netherbrain and become the Absolute yourself. With basically nothing at all before then besides a few acts of violence against innocents. It doesn't even matter what you did prior to that single decision either, you can just choose that option and that's it, you've done the entire "Evil" route.

Beyond that it's just being a murderhobo for the sake of being a murderhobo. Like, you don't even have the offer of power when doing all this, meaning there's no reason for an evil person to even care to do it.

Like, look at Gortash. He isn't just going around murdering everyone he sees. No, he actually has a plan whereby he gains status and with it, power.

Same is true for Astarion. He's not actively trying to murder everyone. He's simply going along for the ride so that he keeps allies to help him (Which is power) and wants to become a true vampire and/or take control of the Netherbrain.

Calling what BG3 has a proper evil route is like saying Skyrim has an evil route because you can run around murdering random NPC's.

 

[dadds]

Calling what BG3 has a proper evil route is like saying Skyrim has an evil route because you can run around murdering random NPC's.

Of course not, because if you make evil choices in the end you don’t have the same outcome.

Take for example the genocide of the tiefling outpost: some of your companions will decide to leave you party if you decide to go through it. If you never recruit Karlach before she will actively be hostile and that possibility will be locked to you forever.

Gale and the portal? Same thing. You fantasize of ripping it apart and in the end you actually do it, trapping him in the simil-void.

You’re actively locking yourself out of content while being shown something else. And companions are absolutely important in the regards of the story because they interact differently based on the setting, context and moment.

In the end bg3 has a non linear story where you can decide the order of your events, their outcomes, the rewards, and to avoid entire questlines. So in the end aren’t these actions the makings of a route? You’re going through countless points in a line which isn’t the story but the setting.
Finally, the ending will change based on these variable: most of the times not by much, but things will not be the same and you are capable of choosing an evil overlord point of no return.

And also it’s difficult non to acknowledge its presence when many people say there is a good route. Also there’s a lot you can do to keep the illusion; and I’m using illusion because every single videogame, even lifesims, keeps itself in its boundaries where you can’t truly make something absolutely unscripted that rewrites itself.

So I think an evil route does exist because you have the outcomes and the journey, and unless I failed to see something else that’s most of it.

 

[SVox]

I thought the concept of Night City was magnificent. And that E3 trailer from back in the day—the one featuring the metro—was groundbreaking in every respect. Unfortunately, however, that trailer turned out to be just that: a trailer.

If CDPR had managed to actually implement the game with that level of immersion, I believe it would have been a title that would have left every other game in the dust for light-years to come.

Go back and watch that old trailer—look at the individual scenes again. That is the kind of experience I want to be having constantly as I move through this world. It should feel both gritty and grimy; every corner should offer up some visual spectacle, and—just as a surprise—an adventure or two should be waiting for me around the bend.

Children should be a completely normal, integral part of the world. The protagonist shouldn't be allowed to harm them (for moral reasons), but NPCs interacting with one another—especially when it serves the story—certainly should be.

NPCs should be given a much wider range of movement patterns. Beyond simply reflecting their body type and gender, these movements should also be much more closely aligned with each character's specific social context. This was implemented to some extent in the final game, but in the trailer, it felt much more cohesive and authentic.

Take punks, for instance: characters you could spot as punks from a mile away just by the way they "carry themselves."

Furthermore, there should be far more opportunities to interact with NPCs. Perhaps an NPC approaches the protagonist and asks for their number, or simply compliments the player character on how cool their hairstyle looks. NPCs the player already knows could also take notice of changes to the protagonist's appearance—something like: "Hey, where'd you swipe that sweet cyber-arm, choom? You wouldn't happen to have another one lying around for me, would ya?"

NPCs could offer to sell drugs or other illicit goods right out on the open street, or try to lure the player down a dark alleyway to ambush them—perhaps with the help of accomplices.

Fundamentally, having more instances of "individualized" street-level crime would be highly desirable for the sake of immersion.

 

[MuscleheadMustelid]

We need to get back to the days where a game LET YOU break missions by either killing NPC's or destroying items or dropping quest items etc. Since then, games have introduced all kinds of NANNIES. Tell you exactly where to go., who to talk to. in the dialog it shows you exactly what options to choose (highlighted in yellow for example ) won't let you roleplay because the game (speaking generally here, not specifically CP2077) wants you to play a specific way (be a goodie not a baddie) and follow a specific story and have the outcomes a quest designer preconceived.

I think this pattern needs to RETURN TO ITS ROOTS. If a player decides not to do a main mission, is that not the same as them deciding to kill one of the essential NPCs (figuratively) It's their decision and they own the outcome. As long as we can save scum we can recover from bad decisions (and that's fine in my opinion).

IMMERSION is the new standard. Not movie games. Sandbox over story.

Create a living, real world with AI behaviors and full lifecycle daily life. Let the NPCs have their dialogs, goals and reactions and drop players in. They SHOULD NO LONGER be the center of attention. Let the world, present itself and players decide who and what to react to. This is life. There is no hand holding. Especially in a cold dystopian cyberpunk setting. That is the brutal reality that the video game should inherit from the TTRPG and the genre in general. The EXPERIENCE IS THE GAME.

Now, sure, there are stories and they should be everywhere. Finding them, following them, choosing paths. THAT is what a TTRPG and Cyberpunk is ALL ABOUT. That should be THE GAME. No cutscenes or extended NPC monologues plz.

Some players might be turned off at the realism and freedom sure. But the same amount of players will be turned off with stories on rails and scripted sequences you can't lose too. So its better to move the genre forward and talk a BOLD STANCE towards realism and immersion and eventually the move-game-lovers will come around.

Thank you!

We need to get back to the days where a game LET YOU break missions by either killing NPC's or destroying items or dropping quest items etc. Since then, games have introduced all kinds of NANNIES. Tell you exactly where to go., who to talk to. in the dialog it shows you exactly what options to choose (highlighted in yellow for example ) won't let you roleplay because the game (speaking generally here, not specifically CP2077) wants you to play a specific way (be a goodie not a baddie) and follow a specific story and have the outcomes a quest designer preconceived.

I think this pattern needs to RETURN TO ITS ROOTS. If a player decides not to do a main mission, is that not the same as them deciding to kill one of the essential NPCs (figuratively) It's their decision and they own the outcome. As long as we can save scum we can recover from bad decisions (and that's fine in my opinion).

IMMERSION is the new standard. Not movie games. Sandbox over story.

Create a living, real world with AI behaviors and full lifecycle daily life. Let the NPCs have their dialogs, goals and reactions and drop players in. They SHOULD NO LONGER be the center of attention. Let the world, present itself and players decide who and what to react to. This is life. There is no hand holding. Especially in a cold dystopian cyberpunk setting. That is the brutal reality that the video game should inherit from the TTRPG and the genre in general. The EXPERIENCE IS THE GAME.

Now, sure, there are stories and they should be everywhere. Finding them, following them, choosing paths. THAT is what a TTRPG and Cyberpunk is ALL ABOUT. That should be THE GAME. No cutscenes or extended NPC monologues plz.

Some players might be turned off at the realism and freedom sure. But the same amount of players will be turned off with stories on rails and scripted sequences you can't lose too. So its better to move the genre forward and talk a BOLD STANCE towards realism and immersion and eventually the move-game-lovers will come around.

Thank you!

I was so mad when I couldn't even aim at that kid that lied about their dad before the final "beat the brat" quest. Genuinely I don't think I'll buy cyberpunk 2 unless it lets you have New Vegas levels of freedom. Let me point a gun at that kid, let me be creative with the way I take out a boss, let me, the player, decide what the PC's life was like before the events of the story, how old or young they are, what they sound like etc. it's better to just let go and let the players do whatever they want in an RPG

 

[SpookyFX]

The reasons against allowing children to be shot or killed in video games go beyond ethics. A lot of them are practical, commercial, legal, and design-related. The issue is actually a good example of how game developers balance realism against the realities of selling a product.

Business and market access
This is probably one of the biggest reasons.
A game showing children being realistically killed is much more likely to receive:

retailer restrictions,
platform scrutiny,
negative publicity,
reduced advertising opportunities.

A game can already be rated "Mature" for violence against adults, but violence against children is often treated as a separate escalation by ratings boards and public perception.

If a player accidentally shoots a child NPC while fighting enemies, many players will
feel discomfort and emotional response. Even players who are comfortable shooting fictional adult enemies often react differently to children. Adults are perceived as having agency and responsibility, children are perceived as vulnerable and dependent,
players often have strong protective instincts toward children.

This creates a different emotional experience. A developer may not want the player to feel disgust, guilt, or emotional conflict at a moment that is supposed to be exciting gameplay as the majority of player would assumably.

Gameplay problems
A realistic system would require:

child AI,
consequences,
different animations,
different hit reactions.

A simple "NPC gets shot and dies" system that works for adults becomes much more complicated.

Legal and cultural concerns
Different countries and cultures have different thresholds for acceptable media.
A game released worldwide has to consider:

censorship laws,
ratings systems,
retailer policies,
cultural expectations.

Something that is acceptable in one market may create serious problems elsewhere.

Marketing and public relations
A single screenshot or video clip can become the entire public conversation.
A developer might spend years making a complex game, but the headline becomes:
"New video game lets players shoot children."
Even if the scene is contextually justified, the controversy can overwhelm discussion of the actual game.



Developers often choose "believable" rather than "complete realism."
Other games have used child deaths for storytelling, but usually as:

a scripted event,
a non-interactive scene,
something the player witnesses rather than causes.

The interesting thing is that the argument is usually not "children cannot exist in violent stories." Many films, books, and games depict children suffering or dying. The sticking point is usually interactive responsibility: the player is not just watching something happen; they are being given control over causing it. That difference drives much of the industry resistance.

Fallout: New Vegas did not allow players to shoot and kill children in the normal game. Children exist as NPCs, but they are effectively protected from damage. They cannot be killed, cannot be targeted in V.A.T.S., and attacks against them do not harm them. They will react by fleeing instead.

New Vegas is famous for giving players an enormous amount of freedom. You can kill almost every adult NPC, including many important characters, and the game is designed around consequences from your choices. But children are one of the hard limits the developers chose not to cross.

 

[shadowm0ss]

Yeah…I strongly suspect that most players are absolutely fine with the game’s lack of interactive child murder.

 

[Dunaedine]

[...]

Fallout: New Vegas did not allow players to shoot and kill children in the normal game. Children exist as NPCs, but they are effectively protected from damage. They cannot be killed, cannot be targeted in V.A.T.S., and attacks against them do not harm them. They will react by fleeing instead.

New Vegas is famous for giving players an enormous amount of freedom. You can kill almost every adult NPC, including many important characters, and the game is designed around consequences from your choices. But children are one of the hard limits the developers chose not to cross.

Fallout 1 or 2 was partially censored in France, but in a butchered way. All children were removed from the games... Even a child we have to find to finish a quest. I have found the good cavern, I saw the dialog of the child floating, begging for help, but was unable to find it, was creepy as hell... until I found this was a bug caused by censorship.

 

[Draconifors]

Violence against children is a HIGHLY controversial and volatile topic, so please do not continue that line of discussion.
There are many good reasons it's not in the game, and that's all there is to it.