Cyberpunk 2077: The Perfect RPG

+
Well we all can agree at this point that RPG:
  • Have C&C
  • Have working stats (this includes roleplay part i think and most of other RPG stuff)
Others are solved with sub genres. If RPG has player based action in battle then it's action RPG. If it's represents stats influence in every corner or accurately emulates some PnP RPG then it's classic RPG. All these games are still RPG. And separating RPG games to "true RPG" and "not true RPG" serve no purpose except cultivation of self elitism.
 
Last edited:
Very much so. And it's not even solely about the simple terms of "success/failure", It's not about thinking that on the go, It's about "what happens" as you play. There's a feeling of being part of something that doesn't come out of a every place being a gamey situation of "yes you can" or "no you can't".
While I agree with what you're saying, the problem is that very often it's decided in a binary way: you either have enough skill to pass a check (so you succeed, because you invested a point) or you don't. On top of that there rarely are interesting consequences for a failure, which makes people even less willing to carry on with a failed result.

On a tangent point, I will say that find it really annoying how shallow conversations are done in most games. Not only because of their binarity (success vs failure, as mentioned above), but also because they tend to ignore the conversation itself: with whom you are speaking and how you are leading the conversation. Talking to someone who is stupid should be different than talking to someone who isn't stupid. Same goes for characters' motivations and goals. Just because you have access to a skill doesn't mean it should always work. People aren't that simple. And there always should be different ways of persuading people or engaging in the conversation besides logic/speechcraft (such as charming/seducing, lying/tricking, etc.).
 
Last edited:
Narratively, I am yet to be disappointed because this is the aspect they're wanting to be the best at. The predifined-character, the fpp. I can live with that, but it's a compromise to some of people who's used to the traditional idea of an RPG. This will surely be a different experience and I really want it to be the best in what it does.
 
I think the largest part of its success will hinge on whether "V" resonates with players and the story delivers enough impact that players prefer it over a classic "silent protagonist". It's already proven that this is a very effective technique when handled well. The Avatar for Ultima, the Heir of Bhaal for Baldur's Gate, the Grey Warden / Hawke / Grand Inquisitor for Dragon Age, Cmdr. Shepard for Mass Effect, countless characters for the Final Fantasy series, etc.

Plus, I hope as much as everyone that CP2077 hits like a hurricane, but TW3 is a very hard act to follow.
 
I think the largest part of its success will hinge on whether "V" resonates with players and the story delivers enough impact that players prefer it over a classic "silent protagonist". It's already proven that this is a very effective technique when handled well. The Avatar for Ultima, the Heir of Bhaal for Baldur's Gate, the Grey Warden / Hawke / Grand Inquisitor for Dragon Age, Cmdr. Shepard for Mass Effect, countless characters for the Final Fantasy series, etc.

Plus, I hope as much as everyone that CP2077 hits like a hurricane, but TW3 is a very hard act to follow.

I wouldn't define some of the character you speak of as already defined characters, as they are almost not defined, it's just that things happens to them.
 
I wouldn't define some of the character you speak of as already defined characters, as they are almost not defined, it's just that things happens to them.

They're all degrees of the same, exact thing. Either I create characters that are an entirely blank slate (like the old D&D Goldbox games and the early Bethesda games) or I'm playing a character with an established persona. Doesn't mean I don't have a lot of freedom within that frame...but there is a very clear frame.

The point is that establishing clear characters is critical for effective story-telling. If I don't define the player character, they're either little more than a disconnected observer, or there won't be much of a story arc. (I love totally wide open, shapeless games, but that's not really CDPR's style. Which is fine with me! I love cinematic games with focused stories, too. :))
 
They're all degrees of the same, exact thing. Either I create characters that are an entirely blank slate (like the old D&D Goldbox games and the early Bethesda games) or I'm playing a character with an established persona. Doesn't mean I don't have a lot of freedom within that frame...but there is a very clear frame.

The point is that establishing clear characters is critical for effective story-telling. If I don't define the player character, they're either little more than a disconnected observer, or there won't be much of a story arc. (I love totally wide open, shapeless games, but that's not really CDPR's style. Which is fine with me! I love cinematic games with focused stories, too. :))

But some of the character you speak about doesn't have an established persona, just a background and things happening to them.
What they are on the inside of their mind is blank, it's just things happening to them.
That's the problem I have with V: the inside of his mind isn't blank nor chosen by me.

That doesn't mean that I'm not on focused stories too, just that I prefer that things happens to my character instead my character doing things on his own accord.
 
It won't be perfect -- I doubt there will ever be a game I would call perfect -- but based on what we have seen so far, and of course CDPR's track record, I'm sure it will be a truly great RPG. :)
 
It won't be perfect -- I doubt there will ever be a game I would call perfect
Counterpoint, tiddlywinks.
But some of the character you speak about doesn't have an established persona, just a background and things happening to them.
Most of those mentioned above do have a basic character frame on which they are based. They are to varying degrees, but none of them are blank slates.
 
Counterpoint, tiddlywinks.

Most of those mentioned above do have a basic character frame on which they are based. They are to varying degrees, but none of them are blank slates.

What I'm trying to say there is a big difference between setting the background of a character and setting his persona.
One is just a starting point, the other is imposed roleplay.
 
What I'm trying to say there is a big difference between setting the background of a character and setting his persona.
One is just a starting point, the other is imposed roleplay.

The only difference is the degree. First consideration is, will the character be a.) "a blank slate" or b.) "an established persona". You have one or the other, and they're mutually exclusive.

If I choose blank slate, I wind up with a game like Mount and Blade, TES Arena, Daggerfall, or Morrowind, or a random party of adventurers like the old Wizardry or Might and Magic games. Lots of fun stuff to do, sometimes a cool plot, but the narrative of these games are clunky as all hoo-ha. You don't play them for an intensive, literary experience.

If I choose established persona, it will dictate who my character is and their role in the world. Being Cmdr. Shepard, decorated officer of the Alliance Military with an illustrious career as a veteran soldier is the same premise as playing as Cloud Strife, a young, genetically enhanced member of eth S.O.L.D.I.E.R. program who defected to a band of terrorists. In FF7, the gameplay is very rigid, the "character" of Cloud is presented to the player via cutscenes, while the character of Shepard is far more open-ended. I cannot ever be anything other than a veteran soldier of the Human Alliance, but I'm given a lot of choice to mold Shepard (or the Grey Warden, the Inquisitor, etc.) in my preferred image. Regardless, no matter what I choose, it MUST fall within the frame of an Alliance soldier.

What an established persona allows for is the player character being directly involved (interactive scenes, dialogue, fleshed-out relationships to other characters, etc.) in the narrative arc of the story. That's not possible if the game's story doesn't know where the player character came from and where they're going. It's the difference between playing Master Chief John 117 over the course of the Halo series (which is the story of that established player character) and the characters that comprise the majority of the Call of Duty games (where I take part in other characters' stories through the eyes of a faceless, silent Everyman.)
 
Maybe "persona" isn't the good word.
My point is that it is possible to impose the background, and impose things that happens to the character without imposing anything which would come from the character himself.

There is a big difference between "who" the character is and "what" happens to said character, and to write a story you only need the "what".

Am I that bad at expressing myself?

Do I really have to resort to examples (that I won't have time to do until perhaps days, considering how much work I have during Christmas...)?
 
There is a big difference between "who" the character is and "what" happens to said character, and to write a story you only need the "what".

Not exactly.. i mean the "what" is almost always tied to the "who" in virtually any type of traditional story telling..

Like what happens to Geralt in the Witcher 3.. Ciri is missing so he goes on a journey to find her because she's is like a daughter to him, it's part of who he is. As he progresses through his journey, he makes it his goal in finding out everything he can that might help in his quest, like finding Yennefer or taking on the Wild Hunt, although the specifics are left to the player like who to ally against them.

Or how in Bloodlines, the protagonist, very much a "blank slate" is a new born vampire and must adhere to the very strict laws of that society. The story here as opposed to the Witcher 3 is not dictated by who the character was before the player was introduced to the story but who he becomes and that is presented through events that tend to happen from around the character, like the attack on the congregation that judged his sire and ultimately changed your character's fate, without him or you having a choice in the matter, but that still happened to him because of who he is. In this type of story your character dosen't set the "goals", nor do you, but the characters around you do and you, and by extension, your character, fill in the blanks purposely left out as to why you are doing said goals.

What you are asking for seems to be a very specific type of interactive experience that is more representative of sand-box games like Mount and Blade or Kenshi or the X series (which do have a plot but it's very much optional). That or you're asking for Bloodlines, i hope you're asking for Bloodlines :D
 
Last edited:
Maybe "persona" isn't the good word.
My point is that it is possible to impose the background, and impose things that happens to the character without imposing anything which would come from the character himself.

There is a big difference between "who" the character is and "what" happens to said character, and to write a story you only need the "what".

Am I that bad at expressing myself?

Do I really have to resort to examples (that I won't have time to do until perhaps days, considering how much work I have during Christmas...)?

There's no rush! The argument should be enjoyable. I love this stuff. Besides, the goal is to flesh out ideas, not change people's minds.


Not exactly.. i mean the "what" is almost always tied to the "who" in virtually any type of traditional story telling..

Like what happens to Geralt in the Witcher 3.. Ciri is missing so he goes on a journey to find her because she's is like a daughter to him, it's part of who he is. As he progresses through his journey, he makes it his goal in finding out everything he can that might help in his quest, like finding Yennefer or taking on the Wild Hunt, although the specifics are left to the player like who to ally against them.

Or how in Bloodlines, the protagonist, very much a "blank slate" is a new born vampire and must adhere to the very strict laws of that society. The story here as opposed to the Witcher 3 is not dictated by who the character was before the player was introduced to the story but who he becomes and that is presented through events that tend to happen from around the character, like the attack on the congregation that judged his sire and ultimately changed your character's fate, without him or you having a choice in the matter, but that still happened to him because of who he is. In this type of story your character dosen't set the "goals", nor do you, but the characters around you do and you, and by extension, your character, fill in the blanks purposely left out as to why you are doing said goals.

What you are asking for seems to be a very specific type of interactive experience that is more representative of sand-box games like Mount and Blade or Kenshi or the X series (which do have a plot but it's very much optional). That or you're asking for Bloodlines, i hope you're asking for Bloodlines :D

^This.

_______________


I think I'm not highlighting what I mean by "narrative" strongly enough.

Writing "a story" requires only the "what".

Writing "a good story" requires the "who, what, when, where, why, and how" delivered with the correct balance of dramatic action to both create suspension of disbelief and push the audience on a roller coaster ride to the eventual conclusion.

Developing a clear persona for all characters involved -- especially the anchor character(s) -- is exactly what it's all about.

A game, especially an RPG, does not need a strong narrative in order to make a strong game. RPGs primarily get their oomph from the gameplay mechanics, focus on player agency, world-building, lore, etc. If we look back at the RPGs from the early '70s and '80s, they really didn't have much of a story. Rogue, early Wizardy or Might and Magic, Akalabeth / Ultima I-III, Final Fantasy I, Sword of Fargoal, etc. You were just a "whoever" that was given a task (usually in the instruction manual, not the game itself) and sent off to play around with a big ol', mess of mechanics until you figured out how to beat it. It's not that these games did not have a story, it's that the story was not the centerpiece -- the game's mechanics were. Narratives in most early RPGs were, just to clarify the point here, @#$%!ng piss-poor. Campy, underdeveloped, uninformed, badly written, full of stock characters and predictable, formulaic scenarios... (As a result, not very many people were big on RPGs. They were a niche market and remained so for quite a while.)

"Telling a strong story" was the province of Adventure games: Kings Quest / Space Quest, Zork, Shadowgate, Maniac Mansion, etc. These games focused exclusively on pre-generated characters, or pre-gen'd personas (like Quest for Glory). Either way, the idea of having established characters allowed for the "player" to understand motivations, emotionally invest in relationships between characters, and experience narrative impact more readily as it was being delivered through classical, storytelling techniques. (As a result, the Adventure game genre became a mainstream hit for almost 20 years.)

JRPGs were the first to start merging the two genres in a big way that really worked. The decision to create established characters for the Final Fantasy series, for example, was a gateway for entire swaths of mainstream gamers to delve into "RPG elements" within what was an Adventure game at its core. Now, "RPGs" were being developed that used classical storytelling techniques to create motivation that more players could latch onto.

There's the critical consideration for a strong narrative. I cannot create a character that is directly involved in the narrative (as opposed to being involved in the gameplay or overall story) unless that narrative knows who that character is. In order to have the narrative react, I need to have them "written in". Scenes can't just be spawned out of thin air. If I allow the player to create a completely blank slate, I wind up with one of the following results:

1.) Persona and gameplay that is not defined in any way other than what the player envisions in their mind. There will be an overarching "story" perhaps, but there will be no narrative other than what the player imagines. And it will be impossible to deliver it as a narrative, since there's no way the game can know where the story is going next. Minecraft. Daggerfall.

2.) The game will interact with the character on a one-note basis, meaning that regardless of what the player does, the narrative will continue apace without them. In terms of the story, they are primarily along for the ride. Almost all of the D&D Goldbox games. Dark Souls.

3.) I create a complete sandbox that removes all aspects of a beginning, middle, or end, and doesn't even attempt to deliver a set story. The game is wholly focused on its mechanics. Mount and Blade. Rimworld.

Alternatively, I develop an RPG that draws heavily from Adventure staples and create a player character that is an already-established persona within the context of the larger story. Now, I can start creating narratives, whether linear or branching. I can't have Cmdr. Shepard involved in dialogue that creates emotional, cinematic impact unless the game knows who Shepard is and delivers the appropriate performance. I can't have a randomly created character arrive on the Isle of Mists, sit silently beside Ciri's body, and get tears to appear in the audience's eyes -- that needs to be Geralt. Compare this to the relative emotional void of an NPC in Skyrim congratulating the player for defeating Alduin. There's no weight, there's no tension, there's no chemistry. It's flat lines delivered as neutrally as possible to ensure the intent is conveyed. There's no dramatic action in the narrative. It doesn't involve that, particular, player character. Those NPCs could be speaking to...well...anyone.

TL;DR
It's not to say that a shapeless RPG is better or worse than a narrative-driven RPG. Despite what I'm arguing here, I actually prefer games that are more sandbox in nature. I love a good story, but I think they often get in the way of good gameplay. (Not at all worried about CP2077, though, as I think CDPR's most salient feature is delivering astoundingly good narratives that enhance their games.) My point is that a narrative experience cannot have blank-slate characters. That's like saying:

"We're going to throw a surprise birthday party, and it's going to be an absolutely epic event that we're going to film and everything! Awesome!!! Who's birthday? I have no idea! Boy or girl? No clue! How old? Who knows! What sort of music do they like? Couldn't begin to tell ya! So, how do we know what to...? Impossible to guess! Alright everyone, let's make this the best birthday ever!"

So, if an RPG aims to tell a moving story through a narrative-driven plot, then the player character must have an established persona to be directly involved. If an RPG wants to create a blank-slate character, all narrative aspects immediately take a back seat. Liking one method over the other is a matter of opinion, of course.
 
They did, they brought us a new whole way of playing RPG's, in my opinion.
I don't see anything new for the genre of RPGs gameplay-wise (except for scope for something similarly cinematic, but it's not revolution), but what CDPR definitely did is showed that ambitious single player AAA of great quality are still relevant and studios can do it without using mtx or loot boxes.
 
I don't see anything new for the genre of RPGs gameplay-wise (except for scope for something similarly cinematic, but it's not revolution), but what CDPR definitely did is showed that ambitious single player AAA of great quality are still relevant and studios can do it without using mtx or loot boxes.

Having no micro-transactions of course is awesome but I still think that they revolutionize the industry but no one is obliged to have the same opinion as me.
 
I don't know if I could consider a revolution, but TW3 set the standards for open world games in 2015 (it was also the first high quality next-gen-only game, AC unity was not that good, bloodborne is not that impressive techinically speaking). Now the standard is RDR2. Let's see if CP2077 can bring the award back to Poland.
 
I don't know if I could consider a revolution, but TW3 set the standards for open world games in 2015 (it was also the first high quality next-gen-only game, AC unity was not that good, bloodborne is not that impressive techinically speaking). Now the standard is RDR2. Let's see if CP2077 can bring the award back to Poland.

Precisely what I meant, we can distinguish CDPR from the other studios for their quality.
 
Yeah, they are one of the few (with rockstar and sony, speaking only about BIG publishers, real AAA games) who respect people who buy their games. Others (EA, bethesda, ubisoft, activision) really look like they just want our money, no matter about the quality of their products. Microtransactions in single player games and cut-content DLCs. Disgusting.
 
Top Bottom