Then again, that was a developer build in the demo. They unlocked a bunch of skills and probably modded the damage multiplier.
depends how you do it. having higher level people with better armor is just an obvious and easily accepted way to make enemies tankier.
its real simple, they have better armor than your weapons.
Post automatically merged:
well two things.
1. speed of combat is often dictated by player style. you can greatly control the pace of combat in most games.
2. pushing the base pace too much is likely going to turn off an audience that is still deeply rooted in rpg's of a less twitchier nature.
The mere fact that it's an FPS not an RPG combat system has already turned off the hard core RPG crowd.
Last edited:
Well, having the AI using your avatar during combats would solve that, but I imagine that for some people it would looks weird (even if it's not intended for them but for more RPG friendly players).
Terrible application of logic. There is a lot of completely reasonable ground between bullet sponge and one-shot.
But to answer specifically the one-shot question, yep, in some cases. A shotgun blast to the head from short range should one-shot any enemy in the game short of a fully armed tank. A pocket knife in the arm thrown from 20 yards away should be just an annoyance.
BUT, it doesn't matter. The previews have made it clear that we're getting bullet sponges for bosses.
In the interview from TheNeonArcade Lilayah mentioned that with higher difficulties, the stats of enemies will be adjusted thus probably requiring you to shot them longer until they fall down.
However, in my opinion it would make more sense not to make them tougher, but instead actually changing their behavior making the enemy more intelligent, e.g. them taking cover more often, or switching weapons depending on how you approach them
e.g. when they need to reload during firefight, instead of taking cover and reloading, fast switching their weapon to continue firefighting you, then taking cover to reload (or both), and not just taking cover.
Or also enemies keeping distance from close combat when the player moves too near to them, at least enemies who're not optimal in close-combat. Thus for enemies who are talented for close-combat, trying to approach the player instead of keeping distance.
Or when approaching several enemies at once, some of them could try to sneak to you while front fighters give them backup to let them attack you from behind, or using more netrunner abilities to hack the player's systems etc.
Also if they see that specific combat methods doesn't work (e.g. sneaking, close-combat, distance-fight etc) dealing insufficient damage during fights with the player, then they could adapt and try different pre-defined strategies instead.
For example when the player takes cover very often, the enemies probably won't be able to hit the player often to deal damage, because the player is under cover. So if this continues, they could try using heavy weapons to destroy the cover, or try to sneak to the player etc.
This would be a better approach of higher difficulty, also forcing the player to make full use of its abilities (since it's more difficult) instead of making everyone (including the player) one-shot like SWAT.
However, in my opinion it would make more sense not to make them tougher, but instead actually changing their behavior making the enemy more intelligent, e.g. them taking cover more often, or switching weapons depending on how you approach them
e.g. when they need to reload during firefight, instead of taking cover and reloading, fast switching their weapon to continue firefighting you, then taking cover to reload (or both), and not just taking cover.
Or also enemies keeping distance from close combat when the player moves too near to them, at least enemies who're not optimal in close-combat. Thus for enemies who are talented for close-combat, trying to approach the player instead of keeping distance.
Or when approaching several enemies at once, some of them could try to sneak to you while front fighters give them backup to let them attack you from behind, or using more netrunner abilities to hack the player's systems etc.
Also if they see that specific combat methods doesn't work (e.g. sneaking, close-combat, distance-fight etc) dealing insufficient damage during fights with the player, then they could adapt and try different pre-defined strategies instead.
For example when the player takes cover very often, the enemies probably won't be able to hit the player often to deal damage, because the player is under cover. So if this continues, they could try using heavy weapons to destroy the cover, or try to sneak to the player etc.
This would be a better approach of higher difficulty, also forcing the player to make full use of its abilities (since it's more difficult) instead of making everyone (including the player) one-shot like SWAT.
Last edited:
there are lots of people who can like more than one thing at once.
just because you don't like that doesn't mean a lot of hardcore RPG players don't also appreciate shooters.
My personal likes, or dislikes aside ... because for this discussion they're totally irrelevant.
It's a matter of game mechanics. Is the combat player (FPS) or character (RPG) centered. If player then your character's combat skills, or lack thereof, are totally irrelevant and you do what CDPR has done. Gate the ability to use specific types of firearms (handguns, rifles, shotguns, etc.) behind skills. In reality ANYONE can pick up any firearm and with no more then a minute or two of instruction (and not even that if they're knowledgeable of firearms in general) use it. Not well, but use it.
A character (RPG) combat system allows a learning curve. You pick up a new weapon, use it, poorly, and as you gain skill with it you improve.
Also with an FPS system the player is ALWAYS limited by their personal skills. You can't play your character as a deadly sniper if you, the player, lack the skills needed to do so.
Last edited:
I agree with you. Metal Gear Solid V had a good system of this, where if you only used one tactic to approach situations, enemies would start taking measures to counter your strategy. For example, using assault rifles all the time and headshotting enemies will result in enemies wearing stronger helmets that require 1 shot to knock off and another to kill. Something similar could work in Cyberpunk 2077 as well. If you always decide to netrun and hack things, your enemies can start to use EMPs or have firewalls in their system to prevent you from hacking anymore.
It really is a good system, and I don't want it to be limited to harder difficulties only. Incorporating this adds more immersion and enemies will react realistically to your approach.
we've had this discussion ad nauseum, and again, you're applying a very specific definition of where RPG's begin and end. That there's such a gigantic split between the traditional styles of JRPGs and western RPGs already precludes using "traditional mechanics" as a measuring stick for what constitutes and RPG.
again, matter of taste. you think shooting mechanics detract but many others don't see it as if they are fundamentally opposed. you can like both things and seeing both well realized isn't impossible. this is just your personal biases towards the genre.
player skill matters even in turn based dice roll systems, as strategy is still a factor, and I think trying to demarcate between some moderately physical skills and mental skills is a bit much. maybe a sniper cant shoot as well, but someone who doesn't understand action economy and spacing wont be able to play a turn based system well either.
The fundamental definition, character vs player skill use. Everything else revolves around this.
If you wish to think adding a couple stats or dialog options to a game makes it and RPG that's fine, more power to you. But please don't tell the rest of us how we should think.
if you think adding more mechanics to a game suddenly erases the other mechanics, that's fine, but VERY narrow minded.
I'm not telling anyone how to think. I'm just saying that most people have much less restrictive tastes than you. this is about THEM, not you, really. the definition of what counts as an RPG as a consensus is highly unlikely to agree with you.
player skill always mattered though. ALWAYS. its never not been important in any RPG system.
I think CDPR's official position on this is that CP2077 is an RPG first, and shooter second. Furthermore, it's implied that it's a "hardcore" RPG first and foremost. Otherwise they wouldn't have bothered adding in a myriad of options for varied gameplay, and I certainly don't think Mike Pondsmith would be on board if they were trying to turn this into COD: The RPG. I'm not sure what it is you're after with low HP enemies, but it sounds like a non-lethal playthrough might do the trick, and this has been confirmed to be in the game.
For what we've seen and heard so far even taken the progression of TW3, it's always been damage sponges to encourage players to upgrade gear and items. But since they're Action oriented, that's not to say that skilled players can't take on higher leveled enemies.
This could end up as another mix if they're going with ARPG..
Nope.
Hardcore RPG would imply that the result of most action in the game is character based, while it is mostly player based.
I'm not sure I quite comprehend what you mean here. The character is the player from my understanding.
Nope, that's why statistics are there.
For example an average intelligence player can play a superior intelligence character.
Now imagine someone playing a character optimised to be a great marksman. He then should hit things consistently, but he might still not because shooting is player based and the player may be bad at it.
Now the opposite: someone playing a character which is supposed to be utterly bad with guns. He then should miss most of it's shoots. But with a good player he might still touch lots of time because shooting is played based.
So what is a character based result in that exemple? Well, a good existing comparison would be Fallout 3 ou New Vegas VATS, where to chances to hit the target are decided by the character statistics instead of your personal skill as a player. It's the character which makes it work or not, that's the "Character based".
That's certainly their position.
Let's just say we agree to disagree on the matter.
That's probably the intent.
The problem with this sort of progression is it's effectively no progression.
If at beginner skill it takes you 3-4 hits to drop an opponent and later you need to upgrade your weapons to still be able to drop opponents in 3-4 hits vice 6-10 where's the progression?
Ok sure, this game features an advanced weapon known as the Smart Gun, which can shoot bullets that homes onto targets without much aiming involved. I'm sure there are many ways the game can negate general marksmanship skills and force scenarios to be more character driven. CP2077 is very much character driven and there is only so much that skill can affect gameplay as far as I can tell.
To reiterate: CP2077 is an RPG first, whatever else second, and I'm not sure why you think otherwise.
Precisely. It's about maintaining an adequate level of challenge to keep the game interesting. Gear/loot will have no meaning unless they serve a practical purpose, and that means your enemies have to get stronger to justify the upgrades in your gear.
Last edited: