- Status
Best 3 words are "mitigation: nothing" and "aggravating".
I hope Sony doesn't fuck up and go for a "smart delivery" as well, I can't wait until next-gen to play this game.
I hope Sony doesn't fuck up and go for a "smart delivery" as well, I can't wait until next-gen to play this game.
None, really. However there is a big difference between exposition-heavy on-rails RPG that has no branches in the storyline, to a one that allows the player to imagine the PC as a certain kind of person. Usually this happens by leaving enough gaps for the players imagination to fill, and not having PC act in a way that is in contradiction to what the player imagines. This is why I feel the games that get closest to total freedom, are dialog-light sandbox-y games.
You may be forced to defeat the big bad, but is it because you wanted to save people from him? (good motivation) Or did you defeat him so you could take his place as the criminal mastermind (evil motivation). Does the game lay out the reasons for you to digest or does it not? If it doesn't, you can imagine. Personally, I would want more games that actually allowed the latter. But what we usually get at best is neutral ground with the game not explaining at all why you did it.
In my experience, the more dialog there is in the game, the more pre-defined the PC will be. There usually won't be enough space to allow the PC to express their emotions in the dialog. This is just a game mechanical reason: there isn't enough space on a screen to fit all necessary dialog options for different player motivations.
Just having branches in the storyline is a luxury in most cases. But what if the player doesn't like any of the options given? Then they will be disappointed. There is no way in Deus Ex:HR for Adam Jensen to NOT be 'a hero' that stops the evil plan. You can be morally ambiguous on the way, but the end result will be forced.
As an example about the lack of satisfying options I have Fallout 4. Below contains MAJOR spoilers about the story, so be warned.
So, over the course of the main storyline, the player can ally themselves with three different factions. Minutemen, Brotherhood of steel, and the institute. These have different end goals and ways they went on about it, but ultimately all three thought they were doing the 'right thing' for mankind. Institute was the oppressive 'evil' faction, minutemen were the stereotypically 'good' freedom fighter faction and so on. The issue was that in all three cases you were a mere lackey, being pushed around, ordered to do this and that. What if you wanted to strike out on your own? Be individual? Be the BOSS?
Thankfully Bethesda listened and eventually introduced the Nuka-world expansion, that allowed the player to take control over a gang of raiders and act as their overboss. Instead of "liberating" settlements for the minutemen, you conquered them for the raiders so the settlers could be squeezed for essentially "protection money", working as little more than land slaves. Now THAT was cool. It just felt tacked-on because the option was not available at the start of the game. Nuka-world was practically only available later on. Indeed, in the beginning of the game, the leader of the 'good' faction, the minutemen, was positioned something like mere 100 meters from the exit of the vault. You were supposed to be set upon the 'good' path right away. I don't like that.
Regarding lack of options:
When I finally got into the institute fully intending to blow it all up, I found out that my missing son (main story), now a middle-aged man, was the leader of the institute. He and the institute were somewhat peaceful, so I engaged in conversation intending to learn more about what happened and their motivations. After a while in the conversation, I realized that the game treated me as an ally of the institute and the dialog ended in them giving me a mission. All dialog options pointed in this same direction. At no point did I say "yes, I will work for the institute". There was an option to denounce them in the beginning, but after that, none.
This felt extremely forced. Just by engaging in conversation caused the game to assume that I ally myself with them and reject the other two factions. All I wanted was more info. So, once the dialog was over, I shot my own son in the head since that seemed the only way to cancel the "ally yourself with the institute" railroaded storybranch. Now Im sure I was supposed to feel moral dilemmas just by talking to the institute (seriously, they are some whack-jobs), but this whole thing missed its mark completely due to the dialog. I ended up going on a rampage and killing most everyone in the institute, eventually blowing up the institute alongside the minutemen (who I ALSO didn't want to ally myself with, but thems the breaks). At least I COULD salvage the situation somewhat, although not in any way I originally intended. I did not want to shoot my son, but it seemed like the only option after the game completely ignored what I actually wanted to do (just say "no").
I think this has been the biggest disconnect with the devs intended storyline and the PC that I have come across.
Thankfully Bethesda listened and eventually introduced the Nuka-world expansion, that allowed the player to take control over a gang of raiders and act as their overboss. Instead of "liberating" settlements for the minutemen, you conquered them for the raiders so the settlers could be squeezed for essentially "protection money", working as little more than land slaves. Now THAT was cool. It just felt tacked-on because the option was not available at the start of the game. Nuka-world was practically only available later on. Indeed, in the beginning of the game, the leader of the 'good' faction, the minutemen, was positioned something like mere 100 meters from the exit of the vault. You were supposed to be set upon the 'good' path right away. I don't like that.
Regarding lack of options:
When I finally got into the institute fully intending to blow it all up, I found out that my missing son (main story), now a middle-aged man, was the leader of the institute. He and the institute were somewhat peaceful, so I engaged in conversation intending to learn more about what happened and their motivations. After a while in the conversation, I realized that the game treated me as an ally of the institute and the dialog ended in them giving me a mission. All dialog options pointed in this same direction. At no point did I say "yes, I will work for the institute". There was an option to denounce them in the beginning, but after that, none.
This felt extremely forced. Just by engaging in conversation caused the game to assume that I ally myself with them and reject the other two factions. All I wanted was more info. So, once the dialog was over, I shot my own son in the head since that seemed the only way to cancel the "ally yourself with the institute" railroaded storybranch. Now Im sure I was supposed to feel moral dilemmas just by talking to the institute (seriously, they are some whack-jobs), but this whole thing missed its mark completely due to the dialog. I ended up going on a rampage and killing most everyone in the institute, eventually blowing up the institute alongside the minutemen (who I ALSO didn't want to ally myself with, but thems the breaks). At least I COULD salvage the situation somewhat, although not in any way I originally intended. I did not want to shoot my son, but it seemed like the only option after the game completely ignored what I actually wanted to do (just say "no").
I think this has been the biggest disconnect with the devs intended storyline and the PC that I have come across.
Last edited:
To make it short:
What you do: both dev' and the player to decide.
How you do: both dev' and the player to decide.
Why you do: player to decide.
Seems cool.
Do we know if we'll be able to know what's in our pants without having to wait for an actual sex scene?
What you do: both dev' and the player to decide.
How you do: both dev' and the player to decide.
Why you do: player to decide.
Post automatically merged:
Seems cool.
Do we know if we'll be able to know what's in our pants without having to wait for an actual sex scene?
That's an infamously good example. Skyrim too, at least in my experience, but perhaps not as egregious as Fallout 4*. Dialog trees in Skyrim, compared to e.g. The Witcher or Dragon Age (let alone Infinity Engine games), were so underwhelming, almost to a classic JRPG (e.g. Dragon Quest) level
I like the Dragon Quest games a lot but they're truly limited in the choices and consequences department.-------
* Disclaimer: I've not played Fallout 4, I haven't found the enthusiasm to play it yet, or ever. I don't mind spoilers of it. I might install it someday but only if the Fallout 4: New Vegas mod eventually becomes a reality.
New Vegas was much better in terms of dialog and RP stuff, but I had difficulty getting over the hump of ugly graphics..
My personal favorite (with a female PC) was using the black widow perk to seduce the big bad, have sex with him, and then kill him in his sleep. This was a legit non-standard option over just shooting him. In Fallout 4 the black widow perk had been reduced to pure stats boost. -_-
Fallout 4 is decent as a sandbox game, but the actual main story had issues as I wrote above. Also it had been turned into generic and bland product in comparison to New Vegas.
Last edited:
Let's see if this time around we'll see some spoiler free UNCUT gameplay or if we need to go to a behind closed doors event... Or wait until September. Which seems likely after the last 12 months.
We know it won't be behind closed doors as they're uploading everything. I'm with you in that it definitely needs to be uncut gameplay with no commentary. Let the game speak for itself.
They said they'll show something, we don't know what. But more importantly, a little bird told me that companies are considering (not a thing, so far) shipping debug consoles to media and influencers so that they can play demos without needing to invite them to press tours (he refused to tell me which companies). So it'll be a behind (people's living room) closed door.
Needless to say that if this happens, somebody will upload everything. It's statistics. So it would make sense to publish the demo walkthrough first and let the media play it later, but it goes against the unwritten rules of communication.
Let's see how it goes, but my expectations in terms of marketing have never been this low.
The most important thing, though, is that nothing like what happened yesterday with TLOU2 happens again to any other game. Spoilery leaks are the worst.
Very much this.
Marketing for 2077 seems to be working for CDPR juuuuuuust fine so far.
Still... CDPR has built up so much goodwill from the community that it would be a shame if they diminished that.
A lot of people are considering buying the game on GOG, buying collectors editions, not pirating the game, etc... out of sheer goodwill. Why even risk throwing that away over not releasing footage that CDPR was willing to show to a bunch of people and has already made the rounds through the gameshows?
A lot of people are considering buying the game on GOG, buying collectors editions, not pirating the game, etc... out of sheer goodwill. Why even risk throwing that away over not releasing footage that CDPR was willing to show to a bunch of people and has already made the rounds through the gameshows?
Throwing away...the goodwill of people who aren't going to buy it unless they see pre-release footage they think they deserve?
That doesn't sound like particularly solid goodwill at all. "Give us what we want, they way we want it, or else." The vast majority of us are not those people. Thankfully.
They've shown plenty of footage, lots of images and a healthy amount of interviews.
And, again, CDPR sales are going to be spectacular.
I'm glad that the vast majority of us are not like that as well. The way that CDPR has been handling marketing recently has clearly rubbed some people the wrong way though.
Why not release the footage at this point? I don't see any negatives for doing so. I only see it as a positive for CDPR in that they would restore faith in CDPR's generosity towards everyday gamers.
If I had to guess, I'd say it's no longer current and represents out of date game events, animations and visuals.
Given that the footage was released under controlled conditions and that last year they used the 2018 footage for something similar, I think the main purpose of it was to gauge audience interest in different aspects of gameplay. Such as, stealth, non-violence, character creation, driving, combat, etc.
They were doing a lot of questionnaires after the demo footage and getting audience feedback directly as well.
Wide release doesn't serve any real purpose for game development - and they hardly need any more marketing. Whereas showing out of date stuff or changed stuff could catch them up, as it did for Witcher 3.
Which
See why we're eager to see some definitive uncut gameplay? Hopefully before reviews in September?
I know you don't agree, don't worry.
See why we're eager to see some definitive uncut gameplay? Hopefully before reviews in September?
I know you don't agree, don't worry.
I don't, of course. Why would you wan to see gameplay -before- reviews? You'll see it then! Because you're impatient? Oh well.
As for which gameplay, we have over an hour, hundreds of images and uploads, art assets, etc and many many interviews.
Simple truth is, either you have enough to make a buy decision by now or you will wait until reviews and Let's Plays are up.
That's it. The rest is fluff.
- Status