Failing Quests and reloading saves

+
Yes, you can fail quests. What we don’t have however is a game over state, the only game over that you will get is when you die. So when you fail a quest then it’s now part of the story, you have to deal with the consequences.

https://wccftech.com/quests-have-fail-states-cyberpunk-2077/

Obviously nobody likes to fail quests. But im wondering how the save game system will work. Cause obviously we will just reload a previous save if that happens.
 
I wouldn't be opposed to the save system working a little like Kingdom Come: Deliverance and being a bit less forgiving overall, but at the same time, saving on-demand is nice for many reasons.

I can see merits for both perspectives. Not sure which I'd prefer here, frankly.

Good question, though - this'll probably spark an interesting discussion.
 

sv3672

Forum veteran
Obviously nobody likes to fail quests. But im wondering how the save game system will work. Cause obviously we will just reload a previous save if that happens.

If the Witcher series is anything to go by, unwanted consequences may sometimes only manifest themselves a few tens of hours after you make the decision (e.g. Ciri snowball fight).
 
Let's hope the save is ''save anywhere you want'' and not like say resident evil lol 'save in save room only'' .

well failing a quest , that's fine . It's supposed to be a game *with* choices , so I for one...wanna see if these 'choices' actually matter or just sprinkled over like some others games...an illusion .
 
I don't think everyone will obviously reload. Sometimes it's a better story to live with the consequences.
 
but it's also a safety net if a game crash on you .
Oh I know. But this thread is about reloading because of failed quests. I agree that having the ability to save is good generally, and am advocating players just not reload quests ... but rather live with the consequences. It can be fun that way, especially the first run through, where you don't know what can happen. When I do that, from then on, I think of that as my "canon" playthrough. Because it's what my character did not knowing what would happen next.
 
Oh I know. But this thread is about reloading because of failed quests. I agree that having the ability to save is good generally, and am advocating players just not reload quests ... but rather live with the consequences. It can be fun that way, especially the first run through, where you don't know what can happen. When I do that, from then on, I think of that as my "canon" playthrough. Because it's what my character did not knowing what would happen next.
lol I do that too! well...don't consider it my canon..but my 1st playtrough is all about mapping the game , get the feel..learn how it play....and making mistakes !!! So its ok to make mistakes , cose thats normal and everything is new .

but you are right on that..its fun . It really is..and liberating , cose when I start obsessing (and I do , can't be helped) about that perfect playtrough....I'm not saying it get boring but the thrill is dimmed . Oh well...
 
In with her 3 We can't save during mid gwent championship that part increased soo much tension for me. Then u save only after u defeated someone. I like to live with consequences. Yes sure I do like to reload and see what happens if u picked another choice but with a game like cp2077. If it's that open ended I'd play through the game again just to see choice b. But saying that it would take a long time so yeah sometimes I do find it time saving to reload and choose path b. However if CD red do a kind of shadow of war that u run along without saves fine by me. Just don't do that save check point and u reload the game at where u were about to die.
 
"You won’t, however, be able to kill all NPCs as CD Projekt RED wants to prioritize the story component."

Can't it be just a consequence, instead of taking our hands like a bunch of kids on a "freedom ride on trail"?
So, we were promised a fully fleshed RPG in the vein of old school titles like Fallout 2 and Baldur Gates, but we do ends with a generic AAA shooters with gimmicks from Call Of Duty and a "freedom" on rail in wich you're basically free to do whatever you want... by the time it goes with what CDPR wants (exactly what everyone hated about Fallout 4...).

You world is gorgeous, but the way you want to make us play inside is looks driven and forced.
"You'll be able to play a Super tank solo, or a cyberninja"... Lol.
I just love how you guys teased old school fan on CP2020 only to make everything we told you not to do with it (seems your only option will be to kill everything).

I frankly hope I'm wrong etc... But it seems you took the easy road with Cyberpunk 2077 making it a classic action FPS game with a somewhat RPG layer over it.

I mean, as much as I respect your work on story and stuff, I mean, if I kill an important NPC, just remove the quests related to it, or make so he's replaced a few days ago by someone else.
It's a consequences of my actions, and if your world is that huge, having a bunch of quests won't kill it, but rather make it way more "realistic" (you'll be careful who you'll kill next), rather than "I don't give a fuck about shooting at random, I can't kill the stuff that matters), which will most likely makes every 12yo kids very happy (and well, I heard that game will be +18).
I really dislike that idea, you should, as a mature player and an adult, be careful what you do in your game, who you're shooting at etc... Here it's just so "infantilizing" it's almost insulting, so I can spray a whole clip in a street, the only survivors will be the one with a quest to give me? That's ridiculous.
What about being punished for doing so? (Or does consequences only comes from the 3 options dialogs sequences?)

You sold us your game like "you'll be able to live your story in night city", but I do feel like we won't have much choices than following the main track and doing a bunch of random stuff around it just to give a false sense of freedom.

I'll sure play the game because it looks gorgeous and well made, but I lost hope over the RPG side of that game (most skills are looking like they're only "action" oriented, and dialogs looks so scripteds I don't know how my skills will interfer with them, since you can't go "off rail" from the story imposed to us).

I'm kinda worried about the RPG side of that game (that you told us would be a real RPG), here I feel like I'll play an action game, and it's ok for me, I love actions games, but I was expecting an RPG (at least, something as good as New Vegas in term of freedom to the story), but here, every bit you give us make it sounds like "well, you'll follow our story because we did write a freaking good story"... Ok, but I do follow a story in Tomb Raider, even in Sonic Forces, does it makes it an RPG?
Well, nope, I need some freedom to follow or not some part of the story to make it "mine", here you're basicaly telling us there's no way to walk around your story than blindly following it, which isn't really an RPG (but don't worry, it has skills, just like in every random games nowadays, so it's an RPG right?).

So yeah.
Not spitting on the game, it looks really cool, but not on a "RPG" standard, first you kinda changed the base mechanics (Wisdom00 won't disagree...), making it a more "action packed game", which make all the world seems less menacing and now you're wrapping it around your story and blocks every paths around, by simply not allowing us to make a mistake and kill a bad NPC.

Does it sucks killing the wrong NPC? Yes
Does it impacts the story : Yes, probably
Does it makes the game worst: Nope, it makes you feels like your actions matters and you have to play the game fair, not shooting at random like an idiot (which you're kinda selling us from the teaser to the gameplay "buy our games, it has gunz and action").

I can understand why you did it, but understand to see it from a player point of view, and the immersion breaking it makes by having them immortal...
It just kill the impression the city is alive and you have to explore it.
Now, it's more "those 40 persons are random mob, but those 3 are invincibles for the moments because they've 4 missions for you"
What if I shot a bad npc in a first run, and replay the game, and remember it and avoid killing it, etc...
Now, that would make the game even more deep, because I'll do mistake, and dicovers stuff as I play it over and over again.
There, I'll basically see everything on my first run (since you're taking my hand, like a 5yo to show me everything), but I'll maybe play it a second time, either to see the difference with a different gender/choices, but then... well, I'll have seen everything, so what's the point?

Punishement and consequences would bring replayability, you'd try to have a better run, without doing mistakes, and probably your first run would have a bad ending since you did lots of mistakes, but here, it sounds like I'll be free to do what the story wants me to do (A>B>C>D>E>F>etc..), not really have any choices over how the story will plays out (Starting A mission, then doing D one, then H, then B, forgetting to do C and D because I killed the fixer), so it would be like they never happened, so can't have THOSE consequences, but I'd have the one of what I did, it doesn't stop the story from playing out, but I'd feel like my story did have a roots in my actions, not just over an pre-written script that you push me to follow.

I've seen a very cool cyberpunk action-packed game, it looks very nice and better than everything Deus Ex ever tried to do.
But does it looks like a "true" RPG, well, not really, it seems like Fallout 4, it was cool, etc... but ultimately, it was just like following a movie, you didn't had much words in the end, you had to follow it as Bethesda planned it and that's it, and you seems to take the exact same approach (which put off the RPG crowd, but pleased the action one), so yep, it's a thing to make fun of bethesda in some interviews, but if you're doing the same stuff as them in the end...
 
Last edited:
Oh no, if there is a way to fail a quest, I most likely will. :ROFLMAO:
It's cool to know that it will have conseqences. That's what a great RPG is all about. So reloading saves to redo a failed mission seems like the wrong decision one could make.
 
I like to at least have the choice to save. I can live with an unwanted/ unforceen concequence of some choice I've made in a game, but I just hate having a 'fail' in my questlog. Especially when at times an unclear dialogue pick can have the opposite effect of what you wanted.

The way I play an RPG is as the 'director' of the story, not as the actual persona in the game. Failing a quest means a missed opportunity to me, not an aspect of roleplay. Not being to save when I want takes away a lot of my enjoyment.

That said, I can understand that many might enjoy the tension or 'live-with-concequence' that autosave brings. Perhaps a toggle is the answer?
 
I like loading a save and have my characters at the exactly coordinates I let them when I saved. I don't want the frustration of going through some difficult part of the game, die and have to redo the last half an hour.

If only we could have a system where enemies don't respawn at all.
 
Last edited:
Can't it be just a consequence, instead of taking our hands like a bunch of kids on a "freedom ride on trail"?

I do not think it is a matter of hand holding, but rather it takes a lot of extra resources to implement story paths that meaningfully react to the death of every possible character under every possible circumstance, and developers might not deem it worth it for the sake of giving more freedom to a (likely) small minority of players. It might have been easier in old 2D or isometric text only games, but not so much in a modern AAA title with cutscenes and fully voiced dialogue. Even in The Witcher 3, there are goofs where a previously killed NPC later shows up alive in a cutscene, this should illustrate the difficulty.

"Rails" are also normal in CDPR games with their more or less pre-defined protagonists and narrative focus, they just give you somewhat branching rails. Not full sandbox-like freedom, though.
 
Not spitting on the game, it looks really cool, but not on a "RPG" standard, first you kinda changed the base mechanics (Wisdom00 won't disagree...), making it a more "action packed game", which make all the world seems less menacing and now you're wrapping it around your story and blocks every paths around, by simply not allowing us to make a mistake and kill a bad NPC.
They are clearly making their version of RPG (a story-driven), rather than an actual RPG where players are limited only by the engine and their own imagination. And it shows. Just look at how they plan to do roles and skills: confining them to Solo, Netrunner and Techie. This alone is going to limit the players' capability to interact with the game (including quests).

However, there is absolutely no reason why they couldn't do it like Morrowind did it. In Morrowind if you kill an important (storyline-related) NPC you are going to get a message that now it's impossible to complete the main quest. Which was fine, because you could still do whatever you wanted (like carry on or reload the previous save).

I do not think it is a matter of hand holding, but rather it takes a lot of extra resources to implement story paths that meaningfully react to the death of every possible character under every possible circumstance, and developers might not deem it worth it for the sake of giving more freedom to a (likely) small minority of players.
To be honest, you don't really need to implement much of anything if you kill a person important enough that will cause NPCs to organize a manhunt. I mean, if Cyberpunk is supposed to be dangerous place, with lethal encounters, then there is no way for you to live through that. You are going six feet under. The only question that remains is in what fashion you will die.
 
What if the game only has one autosave so you have to accept your choices?

I would be severely disappointed, since such a choice forces a certain way of play upon you instead of letting you choose how to enjoy the game.
 
Top Bottom