Cyberpunk 2077's "RPG" systems - how should they work?

[Snowflakez]

Before I address this post, just want to make it clear that none of the below is a personal attack, or anything of the sort. That should be painfully obvious by now, but I just want to clarify. I actually enjoy discussing this stuff with you because we have so many different, opposing ideas, and I've come around to your way of thinking on a lot of things. I'm addressing your arguments only.

All I can say is that I think you are drastically underestimating the amount of effort that goes into designing a combat system. I see no conceivable world where CP2020 has both styles of combat. I could be wrong, I'd love to be wrong because ultimately it just means more choice - but I really don't see it happening. Literally nothing CDPR has ever said or done would lead me to believe this will happen.

What I'm having trouble with is this idea you seem to have that CDPR is suddenly going to shift their entire RPG design philosophy and move away from any form of action combat (Even action combat with heavy PnP influences, which 2077 will have) and instead opt for this "encounter-based" PnP style. Where did you get this idea? Just from them calling it an RPG? They called Witcher 3 an RPG, too.

If anything, there's evidence to the contrary. FPS and TPS point of view (Not that it can't be done in a true RPG, but it's not really as necessary or beneficial to the player), and past games from CDPR, to name some.

Again, I'm not ruling out the possibility, I just don't understand where this end-all-be-all, vehement confidence comes from. Statements like "The game isn't a shooter, don't expect it to be able to be played like one simply because you like that style of game." make zero sense to me because we have absolutely no evidence to back them up (for the record, I don't care about FPS or TPS games - I don't play em, except a bit of GTA V) Influenced from PnP roots" means absolutely nothing regarding the game's combat system, other than it will probably be fast, lethal, and be influenced by PnP skills and the like. Beyond that, we can only speculate.

Anyway, moving on.

I've offered several examples in the past of a hybrid RPG/Shooter combat system that I think would work just fine.

It may not be strictly to your tastes, but as I've said before, implementing both combat systems separately is probably not nearly as easy as you think nor is CDPR likely going to cater to a small (but vocal) portion of the playerbase at the expense of everyone else.

That said, they will undoubtedly implement far more RPG elements in 2077 than TW3, both due to getting better at making games and due to Pondsmith's involvement (And the PnP roots, of course). With a little luck, it's going to lean much closer to the RPG side of the spectrum than the action side, but I doubt it'll make the full transition - as cool as that would be.

In my hypothetical system:

- Damage is based specifically on the gun you are using and the modifications for it. A standard .22 caliber pistol may not do as much damage (not saying it can't and won't be lethal...because they are) from a distance as a high-caliber rifle with armor-piercing rounds, for example, but both weapons are equally as viable at the start of the game as they are at the end of the game depending on the situation. No gun will ever be tossed out simply because you found a version of it with +10 damage. Damage can be based on wounds, it can be an HP bar (though I know how much some of you dislike this idea, myself included for what it's worth), it can be based on whatever you want. It doesn't matter to me. But some guns will absolutely do more overall damage (in the sense of overall human body destruction, not numbers) than others.

- Combat can and should be very, very dangerous. This is where we will undoubtedly disagree, though, because I don't think it needs to be 100% "you pop up over cover to shoot and you get headshot because of a diceroll and die instantly". That is absolutely fine in a tabletop RPG and it's fine in a video game where that is the primary style, but I don't think it's likely that we see it here. Possible? Sure. I don't know what the heck CDPR has planned, honestly. None of us do.

To me, as long as lethality is emphasized, as Sard said, (perhaps in that it only takes a few hits to kill you or at least do some serious, gimping damage) that seems fine to me. It's a compromise. Like it or not, the game will have compromises. It must. But if you don't see the fundamental issue (in my opinion) with integrating that into a game that will probably take a lot of queues from the Witcher 3 (regarding moving around the world, exploration, and general character controls - not combat related stuff so much), we will simply have to agree to disagree.

- Character RPG skills (Reflexes, etc.) can impact combat, yes even in a game with "FPS" style combat. This is the part of my argument that I think you are glossing over or maybe not understanding, which is probably my fault. As a player's skill gets better, say, their weapon handling skill, there are numerous affects that can be imposed on them. Weapon sway is reduced, reload times are increased, stabilizing the weapon after recoil can be faster and smoother as you learn to handle your weapons better. Some have even mentioned that semi-auto or automatic fire rate could be increased, but I'm no gun expert so I'll leave that to them to explain if they feel so inclined.

 

[Sardukhar]

What I'm having trouble with is this idea you seem to have that CDPR is suddenly going to shift their entire RPG design philosophy and move away from any form of action combat (Even action combat with heavy PnP influences, which 2077 will have) and instead opt for this "encounter-based" PnP style. Where did you get this idea? Just from them calling it an RPG? They called Witcher 3 an RPG, too.

Yeah, they did. And it was role-playing, in the sense of playing Geralt. It was great role-playing.

Not so good if you wanted to play a thief or a spy or a sorceress or...

So they are trying something new with Cyberpunk 2077.

I don't think they'll go turn-based and neither does Su..but we -hope- it's something like Bloodlines, seriously stat-influenced, or has an option/integral system like VATS.


This is -key- since otherwise it's going to be pretty hard to be a cyborg badass without some kind of combat assist system.

Yeah, Geralt was a magic-casting gene augmented super-soldier who took combat drugs. That gave him -quite- the edge.

Minus the magic, you've just described half the Solos in the Corporate armies. That's thousands and hundreds of thousands of badasses.

Then you have the Full Body Conversions, ACPA, Eurosolos, Cybercircle, Angels...

The point I'm making is that Cyberpunk is a much bigger world than the Witcher, ( unless you count dimension hopping).

So if you want to feel like a super-capable badass against 4 Arasaka cybersoldiers dropping in on you from an AV-4, smartguns already firing on you in mid-air...you're gonna need something to give normal people a substantial edge.

Something like VATS or semi-turn based or bullet time or..whatever. Whatever lets a normal person play a character more than twice as fast and accurate as they are in real life. Twice as fast or more, actually.

I also hope they don't stick too closely to Witcher 3 controls because most of us agree that gameplay was the weak point of the game. I hope they step up their game dramatically.

 

[Snowflakez]

-snip-

Yup, I agree with all of this. Maybe I'm misunderstanding Su's point of view, then, because what she seemed to be asking for was completely different than what I understood about VTM:B. You are still manually aiming and shooting, even if stats heavily influence the outcome of the shot. The tutorial mission made that painfully clear. Hitting anybody with the revolver was.. difficult, to put it simply.

I was under the impression that she was specifically asking for a turn-based, targeting-based style of combat, which is not really something I'd jive with at all and really don't want to see here. I enjoy those type of games, I just don't want it for 2077.

The system you described from VTM: B is really all I'm asking for. That's what I mean when I ask for a "Hybrid" FPS/RPG combat system. I just don't want a VATS-like system where I just select a body part and let the game do everything. I want my personal aim to at least have some impact on the success of the shot, you know? There's nothing wrong with automatic calculation, a la Neverwinter Nights 2, but I just feel like this could be great if it was different in this way.

To use 2020 skills as an example, let's say I have a 10 skill in handgun handling. If I'm aiming at the wall next to somebody's head instead of actually at them, I should miss no matter what. But if I have a high skill and I'm aiming at them, I'd expect the shot to hit, or at least have a damn good chance of hitting.

 

[Geralt_of_bsas]

In my hypothetical system:

- Damage is based specifically on the gun you are using and the modifications for it. A standard .22 caliber pistol may not do as much damage (not saying it can't and won't be lethal...because they are) from a distance as a high-caliber rifle with armor-piercing rounds, for example, but both weapons are equally as viable at the start of the game as they are at the end of the game depending on the situation. No gun will ever be tossed out simply because you found a version of it with +10 damage. Damage can be based on wounds, it can be an HP bar (though I know how much some of you dislike this idea, myself included for what it's worth), it can be based on whatever you want. It doesn't matter to me. But some guns will absolutely do more overall damage (in the sense of overall human body destruction, not numbers) than others.

- Combat can and should be very, very dangerous. This is where we will undoubtedly disagree, though, because I don't think it needs to be 100% "you pop up over cover to shoot and you get headshot because of a diceroll and die instantly". That is absolutely fine in a tabletop RPG and it's fine in a video game where that is the primary style, but I don't think it's likely that we see it here. Possible? Sure. I don't know what the heck CDPR has planned, honestly. None of us do.

To me, as long as lethality is emphasized, as Sard said, (perhaps in that it only takes a few hits to kill you or at least do some serious, gimping damage) that seems fine to me. It's a compromise. Like it or not, the game will have compromises. It must. But if you don't see the fundamental issue (in my opinion) with integrating that into a game that will probably take a lot of queues from the Witcher 3 (regarding moving around the world, exploration, and general character controls - not combat related stuff so much), we will simply have to agree to disagree.

- Character RPG skills (Reflexes, etc.) can impact combat, yes even in a game with "FPS" style combat. This is the part of my argument that I think you are glossing over or maybe not understanding, which is probably my fault. As a player's skill gets better, say, their weapon handling skill, there are numerous affects that can be imposed on them. Weapon sway is reduced, reload times are increased, stabilizing the weapon after recoil can be faster and smoother as you learn to handle your weapons better. Some have even mentioned that semi-auto or automatic fire rate could be increased, but I'm no gun expert so I'll leave that to them to explain if they feel so inclined.

I like your approach. Its more or less what I'd do, since one thing that I don't see being discussed very often is how boring and un-immersive a full stat based gameplay design would be.

Don't get me wrong people, I love classic stat heavy true RPGs, but keep in mind that all systems and rulesets have their strengths and weaknesses, and what do you know: lethal fast paced super dangerous firefights happen to be the most radically opposite thing to the strategy/thinking focused experience you get with pnp systems, or anything that gets far away from being able to kinda simulate real time dynamics.

Immersion and just being able to play the game myself (instead of the game playing itself as it follows the stats and conditions I pick) are very important things for me, and I'd argue for a ton of people. It doesn't have to go to one extreme or the other at all, and furthermore there's a core aspect of a cyberpunk experience that would get lost more and more as you approach a completely stat based game.

 

[kofeiiniturpa]

So the question about combat really relies on whether to make it a gimped FPS (that has some RPG stats thrown in to distort the controls) or full on FPS (that has none of what the former has or very little at most).

In that case, as gimped as possible would be my choice.

 

[Suhiira]

Before I address this post, just want to make it clear that none of the below is a personal attack, or anything of the sort. That should be painfully obvious by now, but I just want to clarify. I actually enjoy discussing this stuff with you because we have so many different, opposing ideas, and I've come around to your way of thinking on a lot of things. I'm addressing your arguments only.

Address away, I do the same.

My problem is some people can't seem to differentiate between a disagreement with their "argument" and an attack on their "character".
Believe me, Sardukhar has spanked me several times for responding to fire with fire, so these days I try very hard to ignore it when folks attempt to drag discussions away from the topic and into personal attacks.

I don't always succeed ...

All I can say is that I think you are drastically underestimating the amount of effort that goes into designing a combat system.

Ummm ... not really.
I've designed, and helped design, several different combat systems for both published and personal PnP games. I like to think I have a pretty good idea what's involved and the advantages and disadvantages of various systems. One of the major advantages of video games is that all the math can go on behind the scenes, no need to roll dice and consult charts and tables, so more complex, and realistic systems can be used ... if the developer chooses to do so.

What I'm having trouble with is this idea you seem to have that CDPR is suddenly going to shift their entire RPG design philosophy and move away from any form of action combat (Even action combat with heavy PnP influences, which 2077 will have) and instead opt for this "encounter-based" PnP style. Where did you get this idea? Just from them calling it an RPG? They called Witcher 3 an RPG, too.

If anything, there's evidence to the contrary. FPS and TPS point of view (Not that it can't be done in a true RPG, but it's not really as necessary or beneficial to the player), and past games from CDPR, to name some.

Which philosophy is that?
The one where where Geralts stats and skills matter in combat?

While the player certainly controlled the direction Geralt swung his weapon, and to an extent the exact nature of the attack (normal vs hard) the calculations concerning if Geralt actually hit, and the amount of damage done were pure RPG.

You see, this is part of the brilliance of CDPR.
They made the FPS fans feel like they were in control, yet we RPG types saw the combat system for what it was.

Again, I'm not ruling out the possibility, I just don't understand where this end-all-be-all, vehement confidence comes from. Statements like "The game isn't a shooter, don't expect it to be able to be played like one simply because you like that style of game." make zero sense to me because we have absolutely no evidence to back them up (for the record, I don't care about FPS or TPS games - I don't play em, except a bit of GTA V) Influenced from PnP roots" means absolutely nothing regarding the game's combat system, other than it will probably be fast, lethal, and be influenced by PnP skills and the like. Beyond that, we can only speculate.

Again simple ... it comes from both CDPR and mostly from Maximum Mike.
Mike has turned down many many offers to turn CP2020 into a video game over the years precisely because in most cases they wanted to make it a shooter. He accepted CDPRs offer. Says a lot about how CDPR is going to approach the game.

Also I have faith (yes ... no proof) CDPR isn't going to toss CP2020's core mechanics, and that includes it's combat system, out the window.
CP2020 combat is brutal and lethal ... this does not work with shooter style games ... you have to be able to avoid/absorb/heal unrealistic amounts of damage for such games to even work.

I've offered several examples in the past of a hybrid RPG/Shooter combat system that I think would work just fine.

It may not be strictly to your tastes, but as I've said before, implementing both combat systems separately is probably not nearly as easy as you think nor is CDPR likely going to cater to a small (but vocal) portion of the playerbase at the expense of everyone else.

My "problem" with shooter games is multifold, part of which I mentioned above (the "avoid/absorb/heal unrealistic amounts of damage" part). The second, and more important issue, is they are "twitch" based. If you don't have good (or at least average for someone in the prime of life) reflexes and hand-eye coordination you can't play the game. I'm an older lady, being retired military I know a lot of people who are handicapped, such games might as well be labeled "For children and healthy young adults only, others need not apply".

For many years it was assumed only kids played games, we now know better, many players are in mid-life, and more and more are older ... because they have the time and money to play games. Excluding them from your game for no reason, other then to appeal to the generally younger FPS crowd seems foolish (Check the statistics, the FPS gamer is generally younger ... often much younger, hardly a surprise when you consider some of the behavior common in FPS shooters ... Tea bagging anyone?)

And just how does my proposed system hurt the FPS playerbase? No one is forcing them to play in RPG mode, in fact I've gone out of my way to suggest the primary game system be FPS. Why does the mere existence of an RPG mode threaten you (NOT you as a person but "you as an FPS player")?
This comes up time and time again when I make suggestions, and always the FPS crowd seems to see the mere existence of and RPG mode personal attack on their preferred playstyle. I'm sorry, but I'm at a total loss to comprehend the "logic" behind this attitude.

- Combat can and should be very, very dangerous. This is where we will undoubtedly disagree, though, because I don't think it needs to be 100% "you pop up over cover to shoot and you get headshot because of a diceroll and die instantly".

Perhaps this it the crux of the problem.
I hate to break it to you, but unless you playing a strictly PvP game the NPCs are always determining their results via a "die roll".

So what you really want as a player is a system where your skill and agility with a mouse/controller automatically gives you an advantage over the math and die roll controlled NPC, and by extension the RPG gamer.

Again ... that's not directed at you personally .. but FPS gamers in general.

That is absolutely fine in a tabletop RPG and it's fine in a video game where that is the primary style, but I don't think it's likely that we see it here.

And just why is this fine in a Tabletop RPG but not a video game?
Why must a video game be a shooter/FPS as it primary style?

 

[Sardukhar]

Well, I'd like either the option for totally stats-controlled shooting/fighting (your stats totally determine hit/miss) or stats-influenced combat.

Combat is just one system though.

I'd really like to see stats and skills influence how well you run, lift, climb, lie, steal, seduce, spot and drive.

You can't just turn it over to the machine, though - too boring, frankly. Videogames aren't PnP: no GM, waaaaay too much combat and really, too little social interaction.

Single player run purely by stats would be kind of dull. And I don't mean just combat. People that think it should all be stats still want freedom to choose the smartest or funniest dialogue, figure out the best way to sneak into an area, choose which missions they take on and so on - all choices influenced by your reflexes, intelligence, empathy and so on.

It's a weird cut-out, deciding player agency. Some games like Fallout offer a "stupid" dialogue option, but being actually stupid makes life much different than being clever or aware. You -could- put that into a game, but how much fun would it be? Imagine how frustrating to have areas denied to you that -you- can see, but your player just can't?


So it's a compromise. Degree of compromise is the question. I do like Bloodlines and Deus Ex, but many don't. I also think that if you are aiming near the head but not at it and you have Handgun 10, yeah, you hit. Although I'd like to see a slowtime or crosshair-lock/highlight area instead of autoaim.

 

[Suhiira]

This is -key- since otherwise it's going to be pretty hard to be a cyborg badass without some kind of combat assist system.

Exactly, I have no clue how you'd implement this in an FPS game.
Maybe some sort of bullet time system? But no, that wouldn't work for beans in multi-player.

 

[Suhiira]

Yup, I agree with all of this. Maybe I'm misunderstanding Su's point of view, then, because what she seemed to be asking for was completely different than what I understood about VTM:B. You are still manually aiming and shooting, even if stats heavily influence the outcome of the shot. The tutorial mission made that painfully clear. Hitting anybody with the revolver was.. difficult, to put it simply.

I was under the impression that she was specifically asking for a turn-based, targeting-based style of combat, which is not really something I'd jive with at all and really don't want to see here. I enjoy those type of games, I just don't want it for 2077.

Actually I'm the one that suggested VTM:B as a system CP2077 should strive to emulate and improve on. And I very specifically said in no uncertain terms I did not what CP2077 to be turn based.

 

[Sardukhar]

Actually I'm the one that suggested VTM:B as a system CP2077 should strive to emulate and improve on. And I very specifically said in no uncertain terms I did not what CP2077 to be turn based.

YOU FOOL. TURNS ARE THE WORLD OF HOPE MADE FLESH MADE REAL.

That having been said, I really did enjoy Shadowrun. And a TB Cyberpunk 2020 would please me a lot. But a CDPR real time CP 2077 will -also- please me a lot. Probably even more because I want to kick ass in real time, cyborged to hell and gone.

 

[kofeiiniturpa]

People that think it should all be stats still want freedom to choose the smartest or funniest dialogue, figure out the best way to sneak into an area, choose which missions they take on and so on - all choices influenced by your reflexes, intelligence, empathy and so on.

This line of thinking neglects that there are relations with things, it assumes the player just ”goes and does” regardless of anything.

If the PC can’t sneak, it’s of no use to figure out the best way of sneaking in (at best it is meta knowledge to your next PC who might be stealth oriented), and if he can it can be assumed it is through this knowledge that he finds the best way (if he does, because he doesn’t ’have to’ even if was a master sneak, everybody makes mistakes).

If the PC does not meet the requirements for the ”smartest/funniest” lines, he will not be able to say them, and even if he is, he can still choose not to for what ever reason.

Same logic with everything else.

I'd really like to see stats and skills influence how well you run, lift, climb, lie, steal, seduce, spot and drive.

Yeah. I think there should be a stat/skill influence on everything that has a gameplay focus/significance. This also includes ’sandbox activities’ that might seem insignificant on the outset.

 

[Snowflakez]

Actually I'm the one that suggested VTM:B as a system CP2077 should strive to emulate and improve on. And I very specifically said in no uncertain terms I did not what CP2077 to be turn based.

Then I think I've completely and totally misunderstood your arguments somehow. Oops. I'm all for pretty much everything you said.

And again, I'm not an FPS gamer. I don't think there's anything wrong with being one, but my interests lie so far away from running and gunning that it's not even funny. I spend 90% of my time gaming playing games like CK2, Witcher 3, Bannerlord, Neverwinter Nights 2, and more recently VTM:B. I am and always have been an RPG fan.

I actively avoid your Overwatches, your Call of Duties and your Battlefields. Not my thing. The exception is when the world offers me plenty of other crap to fool around with, like GTA. The shooting isn't the attraction, it's the sandbox nature of the game.

Basically everything you said in response was reassuring to me more than anything. If we can agree that

A. A turn based combat system is not ideal, or at least, not preferable for 2077
B. Aiming and player skill should have some impact on the game (even VTM:B has this), even if it is largely/ultimately governed by skills

...then I'm on board. Note, when I say player skill, I'm largely referring to the sort of "player skill" you would already display in a PnP. Knowing who to attack, when to attack, how to attack, what weapons and tools to use... and this extends to non-combat tasks, obviously.

Ummm ... not really.
I've designed, and helped design, several different combat systems for both published and personal PnP games. I like to think I have a pretty good idea what's involved and the advantages and disadvantages of various systems. One of the major advantages of video games is that all the math can go on behind the scenes, no need to roll dice and consult charts and tables, so more complex, and realistic systems can be used ... if the developer chooses to do so.

This in particular was of interest to me. Sorry about this. I didn't mean to come across as condescending. My main point was that I do think it's difficult and possibly a little unnecessary to have two completely different combat systems. If we have a system like the one it seems you've been proposing all along (my fault for not understanding) -- that is, a VTM:B style system -- I don't think it's necessary to have anything else, frankly.

But I just couldn't (and still can't, actually) really think of any other video game (PnP's are surely a little different, though I'll defer to your judgement since I've never worked on them) that had done something like this, which was the basis for my argument there. If you can think of one, I'd be glad to look into it.

Again simple ... it comes from both CDPR and mostly from Maximum Mike.
Mike has turned down many many offers to turn CP2020 into a video game over the years precisely because in most cases they wanted to make it a shooter. He accepted CDPRs offer. Says a lot about how CDPR is going to approach the game.

You see, I assumed Mike turned people down because they wanted to "mainstream" his universe. Not so much the mechanics and such, but the overall theme. This is why I've had a few concerns in the back of my mind that CDPR might go full FPS, and it's why I've argued so frequently that it's probably the direction they'll go. My impression was that Mike had faith that CDPR understood the theme, and of course the mechanics, but the theme really seemed to be the most important thing to him.

Do you happen to have a link (Not that I doubt you, just for my own curiosity) to where Mike mentioned that people f***ing with 2020's mechanics was the reason he turned them down for the CP license?


Final question... and this is for my own interest...

How would PnP mechanics tie into the sandbox nature of 2077? We're not talking Skyrim or GTA V level sandbox, of course, but CDPR has mentioned that they want the world to be a sandbox to a degree. If I hop in an Aerodyne and smash into 3 baddies, what happens?

 

[Sardukhar]

You see, I assumed Mike turned people down because they wanted to "mainstream" his universe.

How would PnP mechanics tie into the sandbox nature of 2077? We're not talking Skyrim or GTA V level sandbox, of course, but CDPR has mentioned that they want the world to be a sandbox to a degree. If I hop in an Aerodyne and smash into 3 baddies, what happens?

I don't think we know the exact details of why Mike turned down each license application - just that he wasn't satisfied with what they would do with CP2020. He feels confident that CDPR can realise the world properly. He has been specific about what Cyberpunk and 2020 are, though - and FPS/not FPS hasn't been mentioned. He did say at one point that GTA 3 was Cyberpunk minus the Cyberware.

https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2013/02/05/mike-pondsmith-talks-reinventing-cyberpunk/

https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2017/07/12/cyberpunk-2077-mike-pondsmith-interview/

Good reads, both.

 

[Suhiira]

This line of thinking neglects that there are relations with things, it assumes the player just ”goes and does” regardless of anything.

If the PC can’t sneak, it’s of no use to figure out the best way of sneaking in (at best it is meta knowledge to your next PC who might be stealth oriented), and if he can it can be assumed it is through this knowledge that he finds the best way (if he does, because he doesn’t ’have to’ even if was a master sneak, everybody makes mistakes).

That's why they're generally called "Characters" in RPGs and "Avatars" in FPSs.
A character has stats and skills independent of the player, an avatar is merely the players vehicle used to interact with the game world.

 

[Snowflakez]

I don't think we know the exact details of why Mike turned down each license application - just that he wasn't satisfied with what they would do with CP2020. He feels confident that CDPR can realise the world properly. He has been specific about what Cyberpunk and 2020 are, though - and FPS/not FPS hasn't been mentioned. He did say at one point that GTA 3 was Cyberpunk minus the Cyberware.

https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2013/02/05/mike-pondsmith-talks-reinventing-cyberpunk/

https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2017/07/12/cyberpunk-2077-mike-pondsmith-interview/

Good reads, both.

Much appreciated. I hadn't read the first one.

Seems we will ultimately just have to wait and see, and hope that Mike wouldn't give the license to a company unless they were going to stick to the RPG roots in a meaningful way.

 

[Suhiira]

Then I think I've completely and totally misunderstood your arguments somehow. Oops. I'm all for pretty much everything you said.

To quote a common saying we used in the USMC during the many unofficial (and virtually unregulated) "sports" we partake in. (Feel free to look at some of the "grab ass" vids on YouTube.)
"No blood, no foul."

And again, I'm not an FPS gamer. I don't think there's anything wrong with being one, but my interests lie so far away from running and gunning that it's not even funny. I spend 90% of my time gaming playing games like CK2, Witcher 3, Bannerlord, Neverwinter Nights 2, and more recently VTM:B. I am and always have been an RPG fan.

Here we agree 100%.
And as it just so happens I decided to replay NWN2 (it's been a few years) recently and I just finished defending Crossroads Keep and am on my way to the final encounter/battle. The mods created over the years just make the game better and better, even if the core remains the same.

A. A turn based combat system is not ideal, or at least, not preferable for 2077
B. Aiming and player skill should have some impact on the game (even VTM:B has this), even if it is largely/ultimately governed by skills

...then I'm on board. Note, when I say player skill, I'm largely referring to the sort of "player skill" you would already display in a PnP. Knowing who to attack, when to attack, how to attack, what weapons and tools to use... and this extends to non-combat tasks, obviously.

My main point was that I do think it's difficult and possibly a little unnecessary to have two completely different combat systems. If we have a system like the one it seems you've been proposing all along (my fault for not understanding) -- that is, a VTM:B style system -- I don't think it's necessary to have anything else, frankly.

But I just couldn't (and still can't, actually) really think of any other video game (PnP's are surely a little different, though I'll defer to your judgement since I've never worked on them) that had done something like this, which was the basis for my argument there. If you can think of one, I'd be glad to look into it

I'm also savvy enough to know that a turn-based game wouldn't appeal to the FPS crowd, and they are a MUCH larger market then the RPG one. So from a practical standpoint CDPR has no choice but to make CP2077 an FPS; or at the very least have strong FPS elements and/or fake out the FPS crowd like they did in W3 with their combat system. Thus the whole reason behind my crusade (and yes I used the word crusade on purpose) for a dual-mode combat system. No it's never been done before, but there's absolutely no reason it can't be, and it would be easier (but by no means easy) to implement then many would think.

Nope, it's a concept that's never been tried before to the best of my knowledge.
CDPR is known for taking "tried and true" game concepts and using a bit of innovation to make them better, or at least implementing them "correctly" ... *cough cough* most empty "open world" games vs W3. Here's (IMHO) a golden opportunity. I'd think implementing that alone would win CDPR some sort of award, and I don't even want royalties or game credit for the concept!

You see, I assumed Mike turned people down because they wanted to "mainstream" his universe. Not so much the mechanics and such, but the overall theme. This is why I've had a few concerns in the back of my mind that CDPR might go full FPS, and it's why I've argued so frequently that it's probably the direction they'll go. My impression was that Mike had faith that CDPR understood the theme, and of course the mechanics, but the theme really seemed to be the most important thing to him.

Do you happen to have a link (Not that I doubt you, just for my own curiosity) to where Mike mentioned that people f***ing with 2020's mechanics was the reason he turned them down for the CP license?

No can do.
To my knowledge Mike has never spoken directly about who made offers or why he turned them down (he's far more diplomatic then I am).
But if you play CP2020 (or any of his other PnP RPGs) or some the video games he worked on as a design manager for Microsoft (MechCommander 2, Blood Wake, Crimson Skies) and elsewhere (Matrix Online); now not all of those games were ever finished/published but they do give you a fairly good insight into how Mike thinks. While combat is certainly a significant part of each of those games it was never the primary focus of any of them.

So, do I know for 100% certain this is why he turned them down, no, am I personally sure that was why, in some or probably most cases, yes.

Final question... and this is for my own interest.

How would PnP mechanics tie into the sandbox nature of 2077? We're not talking Skyrim or GTA V level sandbox, of course, but CDPR has mentioned that they want the world to be a sandbox to a degree. If I hop in an Aerodyne and smash into 3 baddies, what happens?

That REALLY depends on CDPRs management.
We all know what could be done, will CDPRs management allow its developers the time and budget to do it?
We all certainly hope so.

 

[Sardukhar]

So, do I know for 100% certain this is why he turned them down, no, am I personally sure that was why, in some or probably most cases, yes.
.

Yeah, I would bet a couple of my kids on this. If he wanted a simple FPS, would have done it years ago.

 

[sv3672]

So the question about combat really relies on whether to make it a gimped FPS (that has some RPG stats thrown in to distort the controls) or full on FPS (that has none of what the former has or very little at most).

Ideally, it should be a full on FPS with a character built specifically for that, and a "gimped" FPS otherwise. Getting this right and well balanced is not easy in practice, however. Developers may also be afraid to make the player's character really bad at combat (or other skills), because the game would likely receive a lot of "the combat sucks" type of complaints from new players, and it is easier to design quests when the lowest common denominator between all possible builds still gives a playable game.

My "problem" with shooter games is multifold, part of which I mentioned above (the "avoid/absorb/heal unrealistic amounts of damage" part). The second, and more important issue, is they are "twitch" based. If you don't have good (or at least average for someone in the prime of life) reflexes and hand-eye coordination you can't play the game. I'm an older lady, being retired military I know a lot of people who are handicapped, such games might as well be labeled "For children and healthy young adults only, others need not apply".

There are a number of possible solutions to that:
- difficulty settings, which are standard in action games. Of course, it is not the most satisfying to play on "Just the Story!" or similar, but it makes the game accessible to most people
- let companions do much of the fighting, if they are available and implemented well enough
- choose a different role that is focused on stealth, hacking, persuasion, or other non-combat approaches to solving quests. If the game is done well, these should be viable alternatives to shooting. Although it is not ideal, because it limits the roles available to each player, in some sense it is a step towards "playing as yourself" and is less of a full RPG, but the concept of an action RPG does involve a level of compromise
- turn based mode as an alternative to full real time combat, even something relatively simple like V.A.T.S. in the Fallout series would be helpful to players who do not like twitch based gameplay. This should be fine for those who prefer action, too, as long as it is optional and well balanced (i.e. one mode is not clearly much better than the other such that the "VATS" is useless or seems like a cheat to FPS players)

Maybe some sort of bullet time system? But no, that wouldn't work for beans in multi-player.

In competitive multiplayer, it can simply be disabled. If there are plans for cooperative multiplayer, then it would be more problematic, but cooperative is more difficult in general than a simple "death match" or similar mode, it would also need to be taken into account by the story and quest design (unless there is one lead player and the others are essentially companions). Bullet time is not a bad idea to simulate improved reflexes, since everything (including player movement) is slowed down but you can react and aim at the usual speed, and thus faster relative to the slowed down game time. It can be a character stat or not available at all, depending on the role/implants/other factors. Also, the first Max Payne game from 2001 actually has highly lethal combat, which can work in an FPS/TPS as long as the player is given a fair chance to avoid taking hits.

But it could also be made redundant by the availability of a turn based system that stops time, unless both have their own different advantages.

 

[kofeiiniturpa]

Ideally, it should be a full on FPS with a character built specifically for that, and a "gimped" FPS otherwise.

This notion always makes me a sad panda. Ideally an RPG should never ever be a full on FPS or a full on TPS because that undermines the role you are supposed to be playing (either he's better than he should, or worse than he should due to your ability at FPSing). Even if the game had an agenda for player driven mechanisms, the players role should be more suggesting than accomplishing - that you tell the PC to do something and the PC gives his best attempt at it.... I.e. you tell him to move with WASD and he moves as per he is allowed by his stats, you point him towards the target and he does his best to aim and shoots when you decide it is time to pull the trigger, you tell him to persuade the corp NPC to give a bigger salary and the PC does his most persuasive act and it may or may not work.

Overt player substitution is a cardinal sin of cRPG's nowadays but it is also considered a rule, a cRPG is an action game with a perkchart, inventory and some dialog options, I get that. But since all I can do about it is to complain, that is what I'll do.

Developers may also be afraid to make the player's character really bad at combat (or other skills), because the game would likely receive a lot of "the combat sucks" type of complaints from new players

This is why we can't have nice things anymore.

I had some ideas once about letting the difficulty settings handle the potency of stats and related rules. That there were two difficulty gauges: "General gameplay" and "Combat", and Gg would affect all stat effects and combat would affect combat deadliness and all combat gear avvailability and prices. So that if you set Gg on hard and combat on hard, you'd get a very deadly and highly stat driven gameplay all around, combat included, and if you set both on easy you'd get an easy shooter with a story, and there's some mixing and matching to do to tailor "your" preferred gameplay. Of course the core gameplay would need to be designed to support all that with all the relevant features, and at no point would it likely be a top end shooter (much to the grief of the "new players", but I don't care about that, it shouldn't have shooter combat in the first place), but at least you'd get to opt for the best experience for yourself.

 

[Snowflakez]

This notion always makes me a sad panda. Ideally an RPG should never ever be a full on FPS or a full on TPS because that undermines the role you are supposed to be playing (either he's better than he should, or worse than he should due to your ability at FPSing). Even if the game had an agenda for player driven mechanisms, the players role should be more suggesting than accomplishing - that you tell the PC to do something and the PC gives his best attempt at it.... I.e. you tell him to move with WASD and he moves as per he is allowed by his stats, you point him towards the target and he does his best to aim and shoots when you decide it is time to pull the trigger, you tell him to persuade the corp NPC to give a bigger salary and the PC does his most persuasive act and it may or may not work.

Are you complaining specifically about CRPGs or are you discussing your hopes for 2077? Because it would be pretty stupid to have an open world sandbox RPG in which you can only move so far, determined by your character's stats... Seems a bit weird to me and maybe a case of pulling too much from the PnP roots.

That aside, though, what's wrong with the game essentially becoming an FPS or TPS due to character stats? It doesn't mean they're gods who can absorb bullet with impunity, it means they can shoot 80% of the time with quite a bit of accuracy, again, essentially turning the game into a FPS or TPS. CP2020's rulebook itself makes allowances for characters who are absolute gods among men when it comes to maxing out their skills.

It also doesn't mean every situation is going to be well-suited to combat necessarily.

"Stealth (2): The skill of hiding in shadows, moving silently, evading guards, etc... A stealth skill of +1 is about the level of a very sneaky 10 year old stealing cookies... At +10, you move as silently as a shadow, making the Ninja sound like elephants."

"Handgun: ...At +7, you can do the sort of fancy shooting you see on TV, and have begun to get a reputation of being "good with a gun"... At +10, you are a legendary gunslinger, feared by all except the stupid young punks who keep trying to "take" you in innumerable gunfight challenges."