Gameplay - depth vs complexity vs fun

+

Gameplay - depth vs complexity vs fun


  • Total voters
    273
@kofeiiniturpa the problem with options locked away behind a morality system is that what if I want to play a character who is generally "alright", but if something really important has to be achieved, he doesn't stop at anything. if I didn't have enough options to "make him bad" enough, then I simply couldn't act out my character's actions. and I don't even think that would be a "bad" character, just someone who occasionally flies off the handle - so even if I could manually set a number at the start, it would be a lie. you can't really describe a personality with numbers.

It's more of a flavor thing, really, what I'm going for with this, rather than a had coded gameplay style limiter or a hard requirement to anything on a general level (some reactivity is obviously called for, but not really to the extent of it becoming a "I need it to pass X"). Something like a... A mechanical reason to profile your character towards certain philosophies and rewarding consistency with extra stuff without it becoming any form of hard rule.

A good guy might not ever think of most cruel and assholey ways of solving situations, but still has the opportunity go bad to some extent; a bad guy might not ever consider the most benevolent and virtuous ways, but is allowed to take it easy; the opportunist in the middle goes by the situation without leaning specifically towards either side. It's an ever living three way scale. Sometimes the NPC's might react to and remember the way you do things and might reward you differently if they like or dislike your mannerisms, some times you might get unique content with that, that all comes with the package, but like I said, it's more of a flavor thing I'm going for than an overarching hard metric.

That sort of stuff.
 
Some clear distinction of quantity vs quality can be seen in the 'map size' argument. People think that the larger the map, the more you can do. Others prefer small and dense maps. Is it greedy to ask for both (pretty please)? Jokes aside, I would choose the Division in this case.
 
I've said it before (ad nauseam some might say), but I'd prefer several even smaller and denser maps scattered around the enormity of Night City with an overworld travel (illustrated on a roadmap and put in practice in several ways) between the areas rather than one big or biggish landmass with lots and lots of filler scenery.
 
Last edited:
I've said it before (ad nauseam some might say), but I'd prefer several even smaller and denser maps scattered around the enormity of Night City with an overworld travel (illustrated on a roadmap and put in practice in several ways) between the areas.

Hmm, can't say I am opposed to this idea. A lot of my favorite games had that and it made me feel that going into a new area actually mattered, something that those three games mentioned above might not do (haven't played the Division yet though).

The only argument here is that if they go with that approach, a lot of designer manpower will be focused on building the scenery around the areas, which in case of the three above, was not very much of a focus. Imagine if every section of the Division city had to have its own scenery around that represented the actual surroundings. It takes time and man-power away. But don't get me wrong, the game I am building now has what you said as its core focus, so I am totally in agreement with it (Shenmue and JSRF ftw). But that approach significantly reduces the number of areas in the game.
 
But that approach significantly reduces the number of areas in the game.

Depends on how it is done (and they sure can afford to put manpower in building such areas now after W3 success). And all in all I don't see it much of a tradeoff if it means the visitable areas are more packed with gameplay that matters as opposed the "empty gameplay" that goes on in trotting large but ultimately meaningless landscapes between areas that have the content.

I mean, scenery drives are nice but running around Novigrad/Velen or Bethesda's sandboxes or GTA's prop cities over and over gets really tiresome in the long run and that, in turn makes the game feel smaller by every hour no matter how big it initially feels. The illusion of size goes away as you get to know your surroundings -- that's less of a problem when the size inside which the roaming happens is put under interpretation and the players focus kept on more hard gameplay possibilities than leisuring over nothing.

On top of that, those scenery drives could be emulated through scripted sequences that happen on travel between the areas (if one chooses, for example, public transport during which one might even be able to interact with fellow passengers). I'd put a good effort in making the ways of traveling between the areas as varied and interesting as possible to compensate for the lack of the hands on "dead zones" between the "content zones" (whether it happens on foot or by your own vehicle or by public transport). It's a feature relatively ripe with different gameplay possibilities, traveling that is.

This is of course just spitballing stuff around.


SInce I have some extra boredom tonight, I might as well outline some shit for the hell of it.... not that I expect any of this, but I'd like it.
Three methods of traveling on between the areas, presented on a roadmap (and probably working as an interactive loading screen for the next area, if that's possible).
- On foot
-- Takes the most amount of time
-- Due to that, has the biggest chance for an encounter (though also biggest possibility to avoid one)
- By owned vehicle
-- Takes potentially the least amount of time, but is dependant on the driving skill
-- Adjustable pace (normal and rush -- normal having the speed based solely on the driving skill, rush having extra chances for being pulled off by cops and fining you for speeding, also having chances for damaging you car and even crashing and causing others to crash due to going faster than it is safe for your skill)
- Public transport
-- Faster than on foot but slower than by owned vehicle due to preset routes
-- Possibilities for scenic viewing
-- Possibilities for interactions between fellow passengers (might even get violent if certain types of NPC''s get aboard or if you piss someone off) for flavor info and possibly even quests.
-- Skippable (as in "fast travel")
-- Minimal chances for encounters
-- Costs money based on travel length

"Encounters" needn't be "load into scene, do stuff, load back to map" but just small interaction windows opening up giving few choices of actions (and skill checks) -- eg. "Pay fine [500 EB]", "Escape Police [XX%]", "Fend off thugs [XX%], "Escape Thugs [XX%] --dialog options with whoever you bumb into, if you decide to stop--, etc. An assortment of a kind of "mini interactions" that don't take a lot of time to solve (to not clog up the traveling times), but provide variety and unpredictability to the core gameplay and have some effects on the overall running so as to not be totally worthless.

Stuff like that.
 
Last edited:

What you mention here is very interesting. Maybe we disagree on the scale rather than the approach. See, they could have areas that are 5-10 blocks before you move out and then travel to another area, they could even have a small city that you can then be proposed with those choices if you leave its boundaries. Then, not only you increase the diversity in different locations, you also make the system more flexible and remove invisible barriers on the map limits. I think its a great idea, but on a bigger scale.

Imagine if you could leave Night City and travel to another country by plane, or go overseas. I 've never seen a game do 2 massive cities in different locations, they only make a section of a city/location and have you go there as part of a main quest, which is fine but that extra step would be appreciated.

However I am skeptical of what will actually happen, the only knowledge I have so far is that the known locations are Night City and the wastelands around it, which looks similar to a GTA V map layout.
 
In my mind, I expect something like this but with extended vertical design and more neon/ads. I love to see pathways everywhere, fences that surround certain areas and make you want to find out what is in, sewer access with multiple access points. Chaotic complexity. A POI per 1-3 m., multiple NPCs around, BG noise. Ideally all of the interiors are accessible. A city as complex as this would make me not care about the overall map size, so with this layout I would be happy with the half of the Witcher 3 map size.

 

Attachments

  • city1.jpg
    city1.jpg
    266.1 KB · Views: 34
  • city2.jpg
    city2.jpg
    282.8 KB · Views: 36
I hope the gameplay will be quite complex. It would be interesting how it will work. Kind of like Deus Ex I guess would be cool. Can't wait to see how the game turns out.
 
Last edited:
I have to agree wholeheartedly with this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V8Vgl448Ccg

If this sort of thing is "fun" for you, have at it. For my part I'll add it to my "Not Interested" list.
Oh - Pay special attention to this comments about "What makes a game an RPG."
Yeah, RPG is thrown around kinda easily nowadays. I don't like delving too deeply in the definition, but I still think there's a point where it becomes a bit too lax. Stats and levels alone being enough is that point.

As for complexity - the more, the merrier. I don't really know where I am in the poll, because it's a Sard poll and amputee unicorns make more sense than that, but the more the merrier.

TW3 accomplished good-to-great writing across the board, even in the smallest side quests, and an impressive, believable world. But I felt the mechanical options were lacking, and I want CDPR to push that now to the next level. I want more of a sandbox experience - both in the larger scheme of things, such as how you choose to solve each quest, as well as in the small encounters; the battles themselves.

I think the greatest, action sandbox ever created is MGSV. The amount of mechanical options you have there is staggering. There was no other game I played where I could ask myself "Hey, can I actually do X\Y\Z?" and then discover that I could. I understand that there are many differences, so this is not a direct comparison. MGSV's maps are built so that each assault can be handled in many different ways, and it's an action(stealth) game, not an RPG. This is not a direct comparison, but more some golden standard in sandbox mechanics I'd like for everyone to strive for.

As for RPGs - what are some prime examples of ones that allow you many different solutions and routes for each quest? New Vegas comes to mind as a modern one.
 
As for RPGs - what are some prime examples of ones that allow you many different solutions and routes for each quest? New Vegas comes to mind as a modern one.

Indeed, but then, even New Vegas played it shy on certain aspects because Obsidian wanted it to feel like a better shooter.

I would hope that CDPR dares to take a bit of a risk there pushing the "RPG" back in the fore front of the gameplay and trust that their audience knows how to take the game even if it might feel wonky from an action gamer perspective.
 
Looking at the options for this poll I chose the first simply because I didn't like the term 'winning' in the second option. I don't think this should be a game you need to 'win' to have fun, but rather a shared experience that you participate in and grow with.
 
Here's an interesting video about gameplay depth. It is about a different kind of game, but it has some really cool stuff going on in it that, as a concept, would fit right in with CP 2077.

 
I want CP 2077 to have complex gameplay so I picked the second option. It would be interesting what game mechanics CD Projekt Red would create. It'll be awesome, that's for sure.
 
Top Bottom