I was thinking GTAO from the moment I studied most of the 2020 chromebooks a few years ago and saw the potential of all this rich lore.
I don't like it either, I'd rather have all these things in the main story.
We'll see.
- Status
I don't like it either, I'd rather have all these things in the main story.
We'll see.
Please move multi-player discussion here: https://forums.cdprojektred.com/index.php?threads/multiplayer-confirmed.11013995/#post-11698865
If you ask me, the main or core principle of MP in a large open world with both friends and foes is interesting and that is what GTA:O offers.
Of course I see flaws in how gameplay ends up with possibly ongoing constant attacks that rather annoy (passive mode or not).
It would basically have to be a very tweaked GTA:O-like experience that, if it allows PVP, makes attacks on strangers possible but punishes doing that too much under certain circumstances. The cops of GTA:O are more like cannon fodder if you have certain weaponry.
You are absolutely right about the possibilities.
But when I think about GTA:O I first think about the cut customization and intentional restrictions from SP to bringt players to the online mode to then sell them expensive microtransactions.
Back from a ban for being naughty, I have to say I'm pretty disappointed in the "deep dive" we saw. If that's deep, CP2077 is as deep as a puddle. I didn't see anything that wowed or impressed me in any way. I actually thought the 2018 footage looked more unique compared to other games. This years footage looked like it could have been from anyone, with any genre.
Having a better confirmed look at the skill tree, it's mostly combat. I think at this point everyone should be able to figure out it's an action adventure shooter with RPG elements. I don't have anything wrong with that as long as it's not made out to be something it's not. From last year to this year, it should be obvious what kind of game it is. We haven't seen a single thing play out with RPG choice, other than shoot em up. The dialogue options have been minimal even. Blah.
Having a better confirmed look at the skill tree, it's mostly combat. I think at this point everyone should be able to figure out it's an action adventure shooter with RPG elements. I don't have anything wrong with that as long as it's not made out to be something it's not. From last year to this year, it should be obvious what kind of game it is. We haven't seen a single thing play out with RPG choice, other than shoot em up. The dialogue options have been minimal even. Blah.
Not correct - depending on how you want to 'view' this now, of course. You may not have seen it, but it exists and was shown to people.
The 2018 E3 / Gamescom demo supposedly (by reports of those who saw it) had the Maelstrom gang snippet done in peaceful fashion, and they decided to show the "hard route" in the publicly available segment.
Your implication indirectly could be "There is a focus on shooting all the time" ("shoot them up").
There is stealth meaning you can avoid the potential enemy, and sometimes you can simply never even provoke combat or avoid combat via dialogue and your choices, e.g. paying the Maelstrom gang and / or telling them about the chip.
Perhaps this isn't publicly available, but it was shown to people and is symbolic for certain alternative choices in some situations, cut or not. That said you can obviously not expect to always talk your way out of it and will see combat encounters sooner or later, but you seemingly have a choice in a portion of situations.
Make of the overall game or parts of it what you will according to your preferences but so far I don't buy the implication that there's only hard combat, if that is what you wanted to relay.
Do you have a link to that? I'd looked over a lot of E3 stuff from last year and don't recall ever coming across someone mentioning a peaceful option with the Maelstrom. Hell, we TRIED to be peaceful by trying to pay for the bot and that ended up in a gunfight. That's why I'm curious about this peaceful option in that situation. Seems all our shown options would have ended the same way
Post automatically merged:
I'll also say, my original comment was correct though. WE have not seen anything play out any other way. Even the "stealth" was still manipulating the environment to kill without you pulling a trigger.
Just waiting to see some actual RPG choice and consequence that have very different results. Can't say I've seen anything that resembles that yet
Here's an example of what I recall and just now looked up again. I recall other comments (may have been people who saw it themselves and / or mirrored what reports said) on reddit and whatnot about this.
https://www.ign.com/articles/2018/08/23/cyperpunk-2077-differences-between-the-e3-and-gamescom-demos
My key point is, there will be such options, even if they did not show them in the publicly available recorded 2018 demo on Youtube (etc), nor a recent one. It's just too unlikely they first talk about this all the time or mention it indirectly, including the old 2018 demo, only for them to suddenly cut all of those alternative and essentially peaceful or combat preventing choices out of the game.
In the recorded public 2018 demo, combat happens because the chip was faulty. Any other approach or dialogue would've, as older reports say, resulted in anything else including peaceful outcomes where you walk out. E.g. by just warning them about the chip in advance. Or perhaps you never talk to Meredith in advance, meaning you can't give them a shitty chip and have to actually buy the bot with your money perhaps. Then you could expect to just leave.
"WE have not seen..." is relative. If you went to the old demos or the right ones (I imagine they have shown a lot at E3 and Gamescom in 2018 with different approaches or examples), then "WE" isn't fully correct. If you mean 'the public' (who didn't), you are more spot on, but the reports are out there.
(Just posting to highlight you will have choices not leading to combat, or actively avoiding it.)
First I've seen that... but they didn't avoid combat at all? It just ended up being another optional cutscene that still led to them having to fight their way through to Royce. See where I'm getting at?
And yeah sorry, I said WE as in forum members that weren't at E3. I didn't realize I had to specify for you.
You assume there is no other outcome as combat possible because the report says they opted for combat and because the demo shows combat?
1) The wording from the two reports I looked up that mention a different Maelstrom approach sound like it was merely optional, and that perhaps they opted to show combat mechanics in the demo instead of just peacefully walking out. Basically just because they chose combat due to an insult on the Jacket - maybe for PR purposes to show some combat - doesn't automatically mean you have to fight them for an insult. Jacky offers it, probably, you can just shrug it off or say no and walk out, as they let you walk out
2) The combat under different circumstances refers to the chip.
Source 2: https://www.vgr.com/cyberpunk-2077-demo-bullet-katana/
Now let's be pessimistic and assume going that route, where your V's jacket gets a comment (what if you don't wear this jacket and another different clothing piece?) and Jacky refers to the chip and you are forced into combat?
So what if you just go to the factory directly and never meet Meredith, meaning you cannot get the faulty chip in the first place, meaning Jacky can't even refer to it? Maybe the scene itself plays out totally different because you don't appear to Maelstrom with a faulty chip you warn them about. Maybe you just buy (or secretly steal) the damn thing and get out with no combat. I don't know, but I assume this to be the case.
What I want to highlight with these two examples is there is plenty of room to assume you can get through this encounter without combat based on your choices. I doubt they let you warn them and all and yet force you into combat because of a comment on the jacket where you can only decide to fight them then and there.
It just doesn't make sense having CDPR often underline that choices and consequences matter only to not give you an option in such major events that relate to main plot progression. Perhaps I am not as pessimistic as others but I think even if I were, so far with the information at hand it can safely be assumed combat encounters can be avoided altogether and that you won't be forced into combat all the time.
The example I point to already points to a diplomatic or social approach. Of course one could also just sneak and avoid combat - for example in the Pacifica animals demo snippet. I saw the live gameplay demo at Gamescom myself and we were asked if we wanted to see more stealth gameplay (that isn't necessarily social, but also not fully 'shoot 'em up' oriented) or go solo. More people voted Solo but they did stealth a bit longer before guns blazing approach was picked as V was spotted by an enemy. The particular Pacifica demo could've been done via stealth, too.
Given the nature of some scenarios like the gang thing, social approaches do not always work well because you are in hostile gang territory for another gang, but I just wanted to highlight that stealth approach is another option to social approaches, if people do not favor hard combat all the time.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I hope the information here helps people wondering about combat and alternative approaches to certain situations.
If one wants to remain pessimistic or critical, I can only suggest to wait more public gameplay footage or wait for videos on the game around and past release where people will post "Let's Plays" and whatnot.
There's just a lot of what if's and maybes there. We've still yet to see or hear about any choices that lead to different outcomes. Maybe there are, maybe there aren't. For a team that talks about RPG choices so much, you'd think they'd show something like that off at least once. One of peoples main complaints about Fallout 4 was that you were given a bunch of options but everything led to only two paths, sometimes only one. That's the concern I have with what we've seen so far. There's eyecandy for different cutscenes but no meaningful and impactful choices. Again, maybe they're there, maybe they aren't.
If you want to find out more, feel free to look up more potential sources from people who went to the 2018 GC demos, if you want to possibly find a version where they may have walked out consciously with no combat at all, I think I loosely recall reddit snippets about this but I am not sure today.
My recap or summary: So far (for me) everything points to a high likelihood or 'basically confirmed status' that your choices actively or indirectly influence things including but not just limited to combat.
The articles themselves already show it. If you never call / meet Meredith, you can assume she gets 'recycled' - killed or moved to a shitty post. If you warn them about the chip, meaning they never plug it into the network and never compromise it, Meredith swiftly gets replaced or sees the same fate as you meet a different person as you leave the Maelstrom hideout that would've been Meredith otherwise.
The trailer where Jacky supposedly dies and where Dexter leaves you hanging also hints at consequences - if you did this 'raid' with less "guns n' glory" and stealth or social choices it might've turned out completely different.
The recent demo itself hints at various different outcomes, from helping the gang or helping Netwatch to potentially different choices like helping none of them after you get what you want or along the way.
Why would they heavily hint at or outright say this that choices will often matter and that you often cannot really fully grasp the outcomes of them and then not provide those choices and outcomes?
If you want to remain doubtful or sceptical, by all means. For me - until proven otherwise by the final gameplay - it is very obvious or apparent, based on a number of statements and indicators. Just wanted to quickly summarize again with this post. I still recommend to wait until more gameplay footage showing what you want, or to await release day or wait beyond it to see if it's to your liking or not, if the decision to purchase hinges on this factor.
Meh, guess we'll see. Nothing you've shown points otherwise to me. The Jackie thing is internet speculation because people don't want him to die. The choices we have seen seem shallow with the same level of complexity in super basic shooters with 'rpg elements'. Obviously the only thing people can do is wait to see more/play when the game comes out. Until then, people are going to go off of what they've been shown or told. So far, it isn't much imo
With the Maelstrom thing, the only reason it always devolved into combat is because the devs wanted to show each group the combat. It would not have given journalists much "Exciting" stuff to write about if their 50 minute demo ended in 30 minutes because V just went in and out with no trouble.
You can get out of the Maelstrom situation scratch-free, but the demo player chose to take offense when Royce insulted their jacket. This is not forced.
There are no "What ifs" or "maybes" about that situation. You could have left, no problem. Finished the mission with zero deaths (Except Meredith, who is terminated with "Extreme prejudice").
I agree that what we've been shown so far has been combat-heavy, but does that really susrprise you? Even RPGs that offer many other choices heavily showcase the action elements (even when they're quite poor) in marketing materials and demos because that's what hooks the average joe, who knows nothing about CDPR, and probably doesn't care much for RPGs.
I'd agree with you if we didn't already see combat earlier with the scavs. Or did everyone not see that? That's the tough part, we don't know what was and wasn't shown for some. This is the first I've ever heard of that alternate 'path'. Did they say that you could get out of that situation without combat?
And no, it doesn't surprise me because I understand marketing to the lowest common denominator. I would have just expected them to show off a choice like that once, even behind closed doors, let some people write about it and be done with it.
The scav situation, or the Maelstrom thing? If you mean the Maelstrom thing, then yes, they did say that. As for the scavs, not sure. We only have assumptions. My assumption is it's possible to sneak by them and into the bathtub room, because the 2018 trailer shows the scavs being shot by trauma team instead of V.
I understand what you mean. But in this case, I really do think it's just a case of marketing preferences and style, not a strict reflection of what was possible and not possible in that mission. They showed combat because they want people to talk about the combat and get feedback on the combat. I see no reason V couldn't have just walked out of that situation.
Royce is cool, you're cool, but they insult your jacket as you're leaving. Is that an aggressive move? Not really, just a minor power play. Seems like a clear, classic "Make a choice" moment to me. Walk away and turn the other cheek, or defend your "honor." In either case, it's not as if there are no consequences, cause again, Meredith gets murdered.
Yeah i was talking about the Maelstrom. Interesting that I'd never read anything about that. If so, that helps to ease the concern with what we've been shown. Meredith being killed is something, not much, but something. If it would end up just replacing the NPC model with another, that's shallow. If that would open up a whole different set of missions and storyline, THAT is what I'd consider a good RPG. I'm always hopeful for games and only wish the best out of them, honestly. Just giving feedback from what I know so far
Purely assumption but to me it seems obvious that if you help Meredith you get a totally different approach or handling opposed to just someone from Militech potentially (or not even at all) offering you work opportunities.
Why?
Logically, Meredith would maybe feel more indebted to you opposed to someone who just took her spot and someone you didn't really help survive.
If that mission remains as shown, I'm sure we will see some differences there in the long run. Time will tell.
Why?
Logically, Meredith would maybe feel more indebted to you opposed to someone who just took her spot and someone you didn't really help survive.
If that mission remains as shown, I'm sure we will see some differences there in the long run. Time will tell.
I'm certainly looking forward to more evidence of these RPG elements they tout so heavily. I'd rather not rely on written accounts alone, I want to see it with my own two eyes. Sadly, their most recent demo was not only poorly edited and compiled, but it was again action-focused.
So, I share some of your skepticism.
That's what I'm hoping for. And yes, time will tell
- Status