Actually a werewolf street shaman in a Masquerade campaign, he REALLY was talking to the urban "spirits", but of course normal people can't sense them and have no clue they exist.kofeiiniturpa;n8300150 said:
The fact that he looked like a homeless wino probably didn't help ...
So, Witcher 3 is my personal favorite RPG of all time. And I'm a RPG enthusiast.
But the thing i dont like in witcher is.
1. THE DROP / FALL DAMAGE is too crazy.
2. The movement is a bit rigid in my opinion (INCLUDING ROACH / horse)
3. more filled land in empty spaces (open world at its best )
4. Most of the villager / people or even a side quest giver have similar faces.
After I played Dying Light, where the movement is one of the best movement game ever made. I played witcher and feels very rigid movement.
I know I shouldn't compare both of the game, because one is a parkour game.
But an improvement in movement would really be appreciated.
But the thing i dont like in witcher is.
1. THE DROP / FALL DAMAGE is too crazy.
2. The movement is a bit rigid in my opinion (INCLUDING ROACH / horse)
3. more filled land in empty spaces (open world at its best )
4. Most of the villager / people or even a side quest giver have similar faces.
After I played Dying Light, where the movement is one of the best movement game ever made. I played witcher and feels very rigid movement.
I know I shouldn't compare both of the game, because one is a parkour game.
But an improvement in movement would really be appreciated.
Sardukhar;n8297070 said:
Imagine falling in love with someone and living years side by side with this person, sharing your experiences and thoughts only to find out that you were put in braindance and nothing of it was real, and the person you loved really exists in the real world but has no idea of your existence and now you have the choice of finding this person for the first time, again.
Something like that could turn pretty stalkery pretty quickly though... especially if things turn out differently then from the braindance version... like... you know... the person not liking you at all after meeting... and if you then had tendencies for stalkery behavior as well of course... XD
Also... partly makes me think of one of the Star Trek: The Next Generations episodes: "The Inner Light"
Also... partly makes me think of one of the Star Trek: The Next Generations episodes: "The Inner Light"
Calistarius;n9037630 said:
Good episode. Picard played the flute in later episodes so there was "continuity", but it kind of bummed me that they never (at least to my recollection) went more deeper in how that kind of experience might affect a person.
Last edited:
kofeiiniturpa;n9039630 said:
Yeah. But then, Picard had several things like that which effected him... and I guess the Borg thing took a more center role from when that happend about a season befor this.
I rewatched the entire TNG series at the end of last year. I also watched TOS befor then... and the animated series as well (this one was... demanding to watch... took me as many days to watch through TAS, as it had taken me to watch TOS (10-11 days I think it took me)... even though TOS was 79 episodes at about 50min long, and TAS was only 22 episodes at about 24min... and that is even though I am someone who highly enjoy animations, cartoons, and anime... XD ). I am currently going through Deep Space Nine and Voyager (had a 4-5 months break from it when I heard Discovery was delayed). I am watching it all in the order of when each episode was first aired on tv. Last year I decided to watch all things Star Trek befor the new series (Discovery) comes out, when ever it comes out though (since it was delayed befor... seems like September currently).
Last edited:
I bought the TNG box some time ago and am 3 episodes shy of finishing it. It's a good series, even really good at its best, but it certainly has it's share of yawns and actual Picard facepalms with silly and/or stupid episodes (most notably the rather juvenile and boring love-affair episodes... bleh...).
I like the idea of not having leveling in the game in terms of character prgression. Leveling is played out and overrated and imo would be refreshing to see an open world rpg that does something different. I think if you gain skill points it should be done by exploring, meeting new people, completing main/side quests, and accomplishing tasks for individuals that can either be eady or difficult and thus the skill points earned would reflect that. For example: you meet a character that desires a piece of equipment whether its cyberware or rare weapon etc. The item they need is rare and maybe only 1 or 2 known to be in existance. One is secured on the top floor of a corp in a megasafe and other is for sale for an extremely high amount on the black market. If you buy the item and give it to said character you get 1 skill point. But if you figure out a way to steal it you get 2 or 3 skill points. Skill points should not just be given away. They should be hard to get. Also by getting said item for the npc you earn their trust which opens up new avenues for you in the form of faction to join or a specific skill set that you can only learn from that npc.
Also i want insane amount of character customization. If i decide or figure out a way to get a cybernetic arm i want to be able to customize the look of that arm. Stuff like that.
Ooo and 1 more thing...sorry i just had to add this in...if this game comes out and does end up being turn based (i highly doubt it but ya never know) i will be extremely disappointed. Not that i have anything against turn based combat games i just dont think it has any place in a game thats about the future of mankind and its relationship with technology. Why put such a low tech form of gameplay in a game thats supposed to showcase future tech?? Im sure ill catch some flack for this but thats my opinion n im stickin to it. Thanks.
Also i want insane amount of character customization. If i decide or figure out a way to get a cybernetic arm i want to be able to customize the look of that arm. Stuff like that.
Ooo and 1 more thing...sorry i just had to add this in...if this game comes out and does end up being turn based (i highly doubt it but ya never know) i will be extremely disappointed. Not that i have anything against turn based combat games i just dont think it has any place in a game thats about the future of mankind and its relationship with technology. Why put such a low tech form of gameplay in a game thats supposed to showcase future tech?? Im sure ill catch some flack for this but thats my opinion n im stickin to it. Thanks.
I have always felt that level based systems (in mainly pen and paper rpg's, but also in computer/console games to a degree) is one that I do not really care for all that much. I can stand them, but if I had a 100% choice in what kind of system each game would use, it woudl not be a level based one.DarthRaver8686;n9047360 said:
Especially when said leveling system works by way of earning enough xp so you can level up, at which point you get a bunch of points that you can put on any skill your character has. And the reason I don't really like that is because you can end up with situations where your character maybe earns all their XP for the new level from slaughtering monsters out in the wilderness, and then spend all those skill points they got from leveling up on increasing their diplomacy and charm or something (or vice versa, earn all their xp from being diplomatic and charming at a castle or something, and then turn around and use the point they got there on their weapons and wilderness skills)... which makes no sence at all in my mind... it's not logical, at all. This is part of the reason (one of many reasons) why I have never really liked Dungeon & Dragons as a pen and paper rpg.
That is why I have always, and will always, prefer "Skill based" systems. Because in skill based systems there are no "character levels" (usually atleast), and the only way for your character to get better at their skills is by actually using (and need to succeed using usually as well) the skills. So to get better at Diplomacy and Charm, you actually have to use them in social interactions with other characters/NPC's... and to get better with your weapons you have to use (and again, succeed with) your skills in combat... to get better at wilderness skills, like maybe tracking, you have to actually use the skill on tracking something/someone... etc. Alternativly you could get a trainer to train you as well. This makes perfect sence and logic to me, because that is how we as humans actually work... we get better at what we do by actually doing them, and/or by way of being taught by someone else.
Then there are some several other things which are very common in skill based systems, which are not as common in level based systems, which makes me like skillbased systems more. Things like multiple hit locations for hitting someone/something (I tend to see this a lot more amongst skill based systems then in level based ones), where each location has it's own set of health points (or something simmilar, since some systems don't use health points like that... my favorit pnp rpg does not, and neither (as far as I recall) does CP2020, those two seems to be a little bit simmilar, but with my favorit pnp rpg being more advanced it seems). Or that your character does not get more health points as they get better which is so common in level based system (only way to get more HP in most skill based systems is by increasing the attributes which gave you your health point numbers in the first place, so that the math comes out that you have more... but this is not easy to do (some games don't even have rules for it), since it takes time and training etc to increase an attribute like that, and when you finally go over the threashold for more HP you will probably only get a single point extra).
Now... for computer/console games... here I am a bit more ok with level based systems. Because I know that good skill based systems (because there are bad skillbased systems as well, of course, amongst videogames...) tend to be very hard to create for videogames... or at the very least much more difficult to create a good one compared to level based systems. So for the most part I understand why most videogame developers choose to go the level based route. Part of the problem I guess is that if done in a wrong way you end up with a grindfest of a mess with skillbased systems in videogames, where you need to grind, and grind a lot, to get better at things. And while I personally do not mind grinding, I know others might. My natural "state" of playing games is to spend probably atleast 10-30+% of my gametime on pure grinding, and I don't even realize I am doing it... my "I am going to grind a little today" is probably about the same as when most most people say they are going to spend an entire day on just grinding and nothing else... XD
For your suggestion on how to get better at skills... I personally do not really like that way of doing it. Mostly because it means that the game partly forces you to play a certain way to be able to gather up all the available skillpoints you need to level up your skills. So if you want to play a character who is only good a social skills, your going to have to play sneaky or fight or what ever, to get a hold of those skill points... and as I said that might not be the way you really would want to play your character. I would much rather have that you maybe gain specific types of skill points due to using your skills... so combat skillpoints from doing combat things... social skillpoints from doing social things... etc. Maybe 4 or 5 different kinds of skill points... sure, would be more advanced and would need more tinkering and what not... but I prefer it over your suggestion. Of course, if I had the choice I would much rather it be a "real" skillbased system, simmilar to what I mentioned above (where when you use a certain skill, let's say "lockpicking", and you succeed, your lockpicking skill gains a few experiencepoints (based on difficult of the lock), and eventually your skill get's enough experience points so that it is increased with a point).
I can get behind this compleatly.DarthRaver8686;n9047360 said:
Your probably in the majority amongst the people who are exited for CP2077 when it comes to this opinion, since most people do seem to want a 1st and/or 3rd person kind of a realtime type of a game. As far as I can recall there are only 3 of us on this forum who have been pretty consistantly for a few years now said that we would love to see a turnbased CP2077... me being one of them (I highly doubt it is going to happen though, considering what CDPR has said, and what kind of games they have made so far with the Witcher series).DarthRaver8686;n9047360 said:
Thought... I just don't think the style of gameplay (be it turnbased, realtime, 1st or 3rd person, isometrical, etc), has any kind of bearing what so ever on what kind of a game should be based on which genre it is (be it fantasy, modern, sci-fi, or what ever)... all gameplay styles works just as well in any genre you apply to it, atleast in my mind. So that aspect of it is something I definitevly disagree with you on.
Last edited:
I also prefer skill based systems where skills you use improve. But the problem is, in many of these systems it's difficult to acquire new skills and improve ones that have low chances of success. So you need a system that allows you to gain new skills at some base chance of success and also rewards failure (to an extent) at least at the beginning.
The system I use in my long running Harn game is that you need an instructor to "open" a new skill at it's base (that being percentage based and usually an average of three (1 to 20) relevant character statistics). As long as your skill chance is less then 25 you gain and IP (improvement point) every time you attempt to use the skill and when your total improvement points exceed your current skill (i.e. skill = 11, points = 12) you can trade them in for a skill point. Once you hit 25 only successful uses of the skill give IPs. At 50 you need 2 IP per skill improvement, and at 75 you need 3.
This system allows for new skills, rapid improvement of skills at lower levels, and decreasing skill improvement rates as you get batter at them.
Is it perfect?
No.
Does it work fairly well?
Yes.
The system I use in my long running Harn game is that you need an instructor to "open" a new skill at it's base (that being percentage based and usually an average of three (1 to 20) relevant character statistics). As long as your skill chance is less then 25 you gain and IP (improvement point) every time you attempt to use the skill and when your total improvement points exceed your current skill (i.e. skill = 11, points = 12) you can trade them in for a skill point. Once you hit 25 only successful uses of the skill give IPs. At 50 you need 2 IP per skill improvement, and at 75 you need 3.
This system allows for new skills, rapid improvement of skills at lower levels, and decreasing skill improvement rates as you get batter at them.
Is it perfect?
No.
Does it work fairly well?
Yes.
Last edited:
That sounds pretty reasonable to me. Having trainers available to unlock new skills is the way I would go.
As for increasing skills and such... You could also give players bonus skillpoints, which you can use to put on any skill you want... so that a player could spend those where they wanted, for example on newly aquired skills which are for the most part to low to reliably earn experience on when you play. But one needs to be carefull with points like that, especially in a pnp rpg, so you don't give to much. The best oppertunity to give players these kinds of bonus skillpoints, in my mind atleast, is between campaigns due to a timejump (or if they go on a long trip, where you move time forward a lot due that nothing is supposed to happen during the trip or something). It should never be a huge amount of them, but enough to maybe raise soemthing, or at least get parts of the way to it.
An alternative way would be for the GM to explain that it was something like X months ago that the characters was on their last campaign, and then ask them how each character "survived" during that time (as in earned enough money to get by with food and houseing and what not), and which maybe 3 skills the characters used during that time to acheive this. And then maybe also ask the player "which 1 or 2 other skills did your character try to get better at during that time". All those skills would get 1 point each towards getting better at them. Of course, you would also have the player roll for these skills as well, to see how well they did during that time. Where the "make a living" rolls would indicate how well things went for the charactur during that time (all failures = scraped by and owes someone a dept or favor... all successes = start this new campaign with a bit extra pocket money, and/or someone owes your character a favor or something). Where as the rolls for the skills your character trained on during that time (so not the "make a living" skills) would indicate if you only got the base bonus point for the skill or one additional one (in other words, a failed roll = 1 skill point for the skill... a successful roll = 2 skill points for that skill).
I don't know how this would be inplimented in a videogame though... it would probably be compleatly unneccesary to have such a thing there since few videogames have such mechanics where time passes like that.
As for increasing skills and such... You could also give players bonus skillpoints, which you can use to put on any skill you want... so that a player could spend those where they wanted, for example on newly aquired skills which are for the most part to low to reliably earn experience on when you play. But one needs to be carefull with points like that, especially in a pnp rpg, so you don't give to much. The best oppertunity to give players these kinds of bonus skillpoints, in my mind atleast, is between campaigns due to a timejump (or if they go on a long trip, where you move time forward a lot due that nothing is supposed to happen during the trip or something). It should never be a huge amount of them, but enough to maybe raise soemthing, or at least get parts of the way to it.
An alternative way would be for the GM to explain that it was something like X months ago that the characters was on their last campaign, and then ask them how each character "survived" during that time (as in earned enough money to get by with food and houseing and what not), and which maybe 3 skills the characters used during that time to acheive this. And then maybe also ask the player "which 1 or 2 other skills did your character try to get better at during that time". All those skills would get 1 point each towards getting better at them. Of course, you would also have the player roll for these skills as well, to see how well they did during that time. Where the "make a living" rolls would indicate how well things went for the charactur during that time (all failures = scraped by and owes someone a dept or favor... all successes = start this new campaign with a bit extra pocket money, and/or someone owes your character a favor or something). Where as the rolls for the skills your character trained on during that time (so not the "make a living" skills) would indicate if you only got the base bonus point for the skill or one additional one (in other words, a failed roll = 1 skill point for the skill... a successful roll = 2 skill points for that skill).
I don't know how this would be inplimented in a videogame though... it would probably be compleatly unneccesary to have such a thing there since few videogames have such mechanics where time passes like that.
Sydanyo;n9098220 said:
Not at all...it would precisely work better for non voiced, since it doesn't directly focus on the player. In classic scenes from Far Cry/R6 you can see how camera is always focused on them: they are far more active in comparison.
For third person and voiced, we have a different story: you need to always showcase protagonist's responses, his/her body language, facial animations....Dragon Age Origins tried to mix both and clearly failed ( player ended up having a kind of silly, "addled look" in almost every scene).
And most people familiar with Cyberpunk will agree it has far too much variation when it comes to player background/customization for voiced to be a good idea.
As I see it, this would be best alternative for non voiced+ intense/cinematic direction that works seamlessly with gameplay...but without it reduced to two static billboards exchanging words, a la Skyrim.
And imo, it would be a big mistake if CDPR goes into this with: "If something worked well in Witcher, so it would here"... even if executed well.
Last edited:
Eltyris;n9098300 said:
I agree that a voiced protagonist would be a mistake, in an RPG based on actual role playing and building your character up and creating a backstory, and to have a voice not your own. It would better to just use old school text based dialog in my opinion. Fallout 4 and whatever the new mass effect is, failed here. The story should be presented to the player by what's happing around and interpreted by the player. That doesn't mean you wouldn't have a voice so to speak in the game, your actions and dialog options would allow the game to be much deeper actually.
I really like this idea. It always stinks when you get some really important seeming item that has some narrative significance ... only to find out it's obsolete 15 minutes later when you randomly find a better thing. Being able to upgrade individual components of an item could be a neat way to keep items relevant as the game's story progresses.kennyashi;n9810281 said:
Sardukhar;n9812941 said:
It would clash with the setting heavily if it did thing like that. The Cyberpunk world actually has some semblance of believability to it, especially since many of it's elements were based on actual real world research.
Oh totally agree. I don't think it should effect stats. Merely rating of the armor and the types of things it protects you from (i.e. acid or fire or cold or blunt objects or projectiles or blades etc etc). Totally agree it should not improve stats.Sardukhar;n9812941 said:
Last edited: