Gameplay - depth vs complexity vs fun

[kofeiiniturpa]

But they will have a standardized shooting mechanics like in every similar shooter...

Will it?

That will probably be the case, yes. A standard shooter and a huge opportunity and potential lost at the altar of assumption "but nothing else can work". But since it is not said to be the case yet (implied, yes, but not confirmed), I am trying to push the ideal that that does not need to be the case.

No, it would make no difference.

Sure it would. It'd already be 100% clearer than the "nothing" at a miss it has now. More gamey, and ugly as a pig fuck, but it is a visual response to the players action. It'd do nothing if the player couldn't read or otherwise didn't understand the word (though even then, the red colour could indicate something and that the bloodsplash was replaced with those strange floating markings could raise some suspicions about somethig.... you know).

Of course I agree that there should've been animations there to make things clearer and more dynamic, but.... that's that.

("Insanity is an act of doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results".)

Fits right in with current day mainstream RPG market and developement. Well, except that nobody probably expects different results anymore, they just churn that copied and massproduced shit out and people run to buy it with eyes wide open and shivering from the excitement of getting to re-experience their last game now with different coat of paint.

And again, you're looking at things from "it must be Rpg!" perspective.

You saying it "mustn't"? Boy, are we sailing in different ships here. It does explain certain things though.

It was announced an RPG harkening to PnP roots, it was advertised as being a "TRUE[SUP]tm[/SUP] RPG" (what ever that means to CDPR). If it hadn't, I wouldn't be here; and if it will not be that (an RPG to large enough extent), I'm passing on. I'm not interested in shooters with stats in the slightest.

But the basic logic should still apply as we know what basic type of game it will be. For example, In BG II mages cannot even equip a sword, because "reasons". These kind of rpg strict rules would be silly and out of place here.

That's not the best of examples for the simple reason that it is not from Cyberpunk. DnD is a rigid, clumsy and awful set of rules, anyway.

Cyberpunk's advantage over other shooters

Yeah. Shooters.

But we both know the FPS crowd would go ballistic.

Why should they care? If a game was made that was not directed at them, there should be no problem from their... "ballisticness".

 

[LegateLaniusThe2nd]

But they will have a standardized shooting mechanics like in every similar shooter...rpg mechanics can change basic "feel" ( from recoil to retina) but not override bullet trajectory.



No, it would make no difference. Player skill should affect animation/actions, but not the effect. If you're not strong to wield a weapon or lack the skill, attack animations should be different. But "hit" would still remain a "hit".
Any difference should be conveyed directly to the player visually.



The whole decade of history contradicts that...Morrowind, Witcher, Alpha Protocol, Mass Effect. They all did that and if judging by player reactions, by a proverbial mile were worse for it. And unsurprisingly, they all moved away from it. ("Insanity is an act of doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results".)
And again, you're looking at things from "it must be Rpg!" perspective.
What Cyberpunk should be is a well designed game where rules of the setting, player control and rpg mechanics are consistent and coherent with one another.



But the basic logic should still apply as we know what basic type of game it will be. For example, In BG II mages cannot even equip a sword, because "reasons". These kind of rpg strict rules would be silly and out of place here.

On the other hand, Cyberpunk's advantage over other shooters can actually be it's rpg mechanics, giving a feel of more elaborate, plan your next action ahead gameplay, interlocking rpg stats, skills and secondary mechanics( stamina, adrenaline, etc) with player actions.

Amen well said

 

[Zagor-Te-Nay]

Bullets curve all the time, that's why there are tracers. Gravity, the wind, at ranges over about 200m both are significant factors in hitting your target.

I could certainly support mechanics where the player points weapons and pulls the trigger and the characters stats/skills determine if it hits or not. But we both know the FPS crowd would go ballistic.

Common. I'm not talking about wind factors and lattitude, only classic basic gunplay.

Yeah. Shooters.

No less or more than Bloodlines was a shooter. Solid shooting mechanics would make it no less an rpg...only a game that plays well.

You saying it "mustn't"? Boy, are we sailing in different ships here. It does explain certain things though.

No, we shouldn't. Developers should first look at rules of their own setting and it's background and then design/adjust gameplay mechanics accordingly.
"Classic" rpg design is not an immediate plus. Witcher III ( and any similar games, from Gothic to Skyrim) are a good example...linear scaling ( player stats, equipment, enemy strength/level) was more in line with "what makes a game an rpg", but also a direct contradiction with open world setting and even with it's own lore.
Labels aside, it created far more problems then it added benefit.

I guess this has run it's course and feels like beating a dead horse at this point:in the end, there are three options here.

a) Rpg stats overriding everything... damn the realism, or impact on gameplay ( 99.9....% chance this will not be turn based)

This would very likely be hugely unpopular and so far did not have positive results on gameplay ( for this type of game).

b) Player skill factoring as well as rpg stats ( primarily affecting effectiveness of builds, secondary on core mechanics)

This would be a solid compromise between action and rpg aspects, and could have positive reception with more "mainstream crowd"...If progression systems are presented well, feel logical and intuitive and don't suffer from standard bloat ( of redundant, uninspired and copy paste abilities/perks/etc...)

c) Mass Effect/Division/etc..."choose your powers/perks" progression system

Standard AAA rpg....simple, easy to jump into, but there is no real char building and feels closer to having a more varied load out system from regular action games. ( don't think anyone here wants to see this here)

 

[kofeiiniturpa]

No less or more than Bloodlines was a shooter. Solid shooting mechanics would make it no less an rpg...only a game that plays well.

That shoudl not matter. This is not a VtM game were talking about. And no, I don't think VtMB would've been a better for it if it was made a solid first poerson shooter; it would've certainly been a better shooter, but the scale would have tipped in the wrong direction --- much like how Fallout 4 is a much better shooter than Fallout New Vegas is, but in becoming that, rather than honing what was there, it has also lost a certain flavor from its gameplay. The combat there - in both, VtMB and Fallout - needed honing, but that [shooterifying] wasn't it.

No, we shouldn't.

We shouldn't, but we clearly are.

"Classic" rpg design is not an immediate plus. Witcher III ( and any similar games, from Gothic to Skyrim) are a good example...linear scaling ( player stats, equipment, enemy strength/level) was more in line with "what makes a game an rpg", but also a direct contradiction with open world setting and even with it's own lore.

Do you really attribute those faults on "classic RPG design", and not simply "doing it wrong"?

I guess this has run it's course and feels like beating a dead horse at this point

It does, but it is also one of the only horses around to beat. And arguably one of the most important horses.

One of the more frustrating things about these conversations is that I'm constantly driven to defend stuff I appreciate but have not specified that that's what I suggest. Like turnbased combat, like Morrowind, like RPG stats overriding everything, and so on.

The bias in your "three options" is also funny.

"We have three options; (a) Awful shit design. Eew. No fun allowed. Yuck. (b) My favorite. Golden standard. Certain success. Everybody's catered to. Everybody likes. Yay. (c) Meh."

I wouldn't completely sign that.

But you're right. You are not convincing me about the merits of the game being a stat-shooter like all other stat-shooters out there, and I obviously aren't comning through with it needing to be an RPG to the best of it's ability. The horse is almost dead and this conversations isn't going anywhere at this moment. And I say "almost dead" and "at this moment" because you can rest assured this will come up again sometime later.

 

[Suhiira]

It was announced an RPG harkening to PnP roots, it was advertised as being a "TRUE[SUP]tm[/SUP] RPG" (what ever that means to CDPR). If it hadn't, I wouldn't be here; and if it will not be that (an RPG to large enough extent), I'm passing on. I'm not interested in shooters with stats in the slightest.

You 'an me both.
I'm just (deathly) afraid the combat mechanics WILL be shooter style (and one hopes there are ways to accomplish most missions/quests without a firefight) and no character stat/skill option will be available.

I don't want to play me playing a game, I want to play a character dealing with the world they live in.

Why should they care? If a game was made that was not directed at them, there should be no problem from their... "ballisticness".

But ... but ... but EVERY game must be a shooter!
Just listen to the (unsubstantiated) claims the FPS crowd constantly makes that any game that's not a shooter is automatically doomed.

The whole decade of history contradicts that...Morrowind, Witcher, Alpha Protocol, Mass Effect. They all did that and if judging by player reactions, by a proverbial mile were worse for it. And unsurprisingly, they all moved away from it. ("Insanity is an act of doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results".)

Amen well said

See the above ...

Common. I'm not talking about wind factors and lattitude, only classic basic gunplay.

I think you mean classic "gameplay" not "gunplay". Because real life shooting has to take those factors into account unlike 99% of games.

a) Rpg stats overriding everything... damn the realism, or impact on gameplay ( 99.9....% chance this will not be turn based)

This would very likely be hugely unpopular and so far did not have positive results on gameplay ( for this type of game).

Only with the FPS crowd, the RPG crowd would love it.

b) Player skill factoring as well as rpg stats ( primarily affecting effectiveness of builds, secondary on core mechanics)

This would be a solid compromise between action and rpg aspects, and could have positive reception with more "mainstream crowd"...If progression systems are presented well, feel logical and intuitive and don't suffer from standard bloat ( of redundant, uninspired and copy paste abilities/perks/etc...)

Such a hybrid system it would satisfy no one, the best they could hope for was not alienating everyone.

c) Mass Effect/Division/etc..."choose your powers/perks" progression system

Standard AAA rpg....simple, easy to jump into, but there is no real char building and feels closer to having a more varied load out system from regular action games. ( don't think anyone here wants to see this here)

Now here I'll agree with you 100%.

 

[Suhiira]

It does, but it is also one of the only horses around to beat. And arguably one of the most important horses.

At least if CP2077 intends to be an RPG not a shooter with some RPG elements tacked on.

I.E. 90%+ of the supposed "RPGs" currently being released.

 

[kofeiiniturpa]

I don't want to play me playing a game, I want to play a character dealing with the world they live in.

Indeed.

The statistics overriding player control were earlier mentioned to be an inconsistency in the gameworld; but one might ask how consistent is it that Geralt, a guy with 100+ years of experience with swords (or how ever much it was) flails all around like a child because the player puppeteering him doesn't get a firm grasp of the controls? Or even some a John Doe PC who has his sniper skill at a maximum level the game can offer and still can not put a bullet to a wide side of a barn because his dedicated puppetmaster has problems with the controls (or, what it he was unskilled, but because of the players aptitude with controls, he's putting potshots on peoples foreheads all over the place)?

But ... but ... but EVERY game must be a shooter! Just listen to the (unsubstantiated) claims the FPS crowd constantly makes that any game that's not a shooter is automatically doomed.

That's why we can't have nice things anymore.

Such a hybrid system it would satisfy no one, the best they could hope for was not alienating everyone.

Those kinds of games tend to have both aspects lukewarm at best since the mechanics contradict each other. And then they start compensating with the thought that since RPG and FPS/action didn't really mix the last time, the RPG side is bad and needs to be toned down.

But what if someone - like CDPR - would go the opposite way - for a change? Imagined a 50/50 situation and then toned the action/shooter side down in a similiar measure as the RPG side usually is. The game wouldn't be an action game by heart, but it still would have action.

Kind of like Blade Runner - a movie that has action and violence, but is clearly not an action movie - by comparison to, say, Minority Report or Total Recall that are filled with hectic action sequences.

At least if CP2077 intends to be an RPG not a shooter with some RPG elements tacked on. I.E. 90%+ of the supposed "RPGs" currently being released.

Hopefully so.

 

[Mebrilia]

I would add this.... Cyberpunk 2077 has always been a game following what cd project say: Aiming to be a true RPG... Loyal to the pen and paper most as possible... have the cyberpunk feel....

Why we would even need another Cyberpunk Themepark shooter?

We have Deus EX
We have Hard Reset
And so on and so on....

Give Cyberpunk proper respect and make of it a true RPG...Not another silly action yada yada thempark.... We have PLENTY of those....

Because i don't want to see a Cyberpunk game that will deliever less Cyberpunk feel than a Shadowrun game...

That would be awful and a total failing from cd project.

Imagine that scenario:

Dude 1: WOw i just got cyberpunk2077 shooting mechanics are amazing graphic is amazing openworld is amazing.. lot of fancy action wow...
Dude 2:Yes telll me how come shadowrun games that are older and isometric and even turn based have much more cyberpunk feel than a cyberpunk branded game itself?.

 

[Zagor-Te-Nay]

That shoudl not matter. This is not a VtM game were talking about. And no, I don't think VtMB would've been a better for it if it was made a solid first poerson shooter; it would've certainly been a better shooter, but the scale would have tipped in the wrong direction --- much like how Fallout 4 is a much better shooter than Fallout New Vegas is, but in becoming that, rather than honing what was there, it has also lost a certain flavor from its gameplay. The combat there - in both, VtMB and Fallout - needed honing, but that [shooterifying] wasn't it.

I don't see how, unless it's a matter of same person designing rpg and shooting mechanics. And for most (AAA in particular) games, gameplay issues come from incoherent desing and are beaten by a plenty of indie games, designed for a fraction of their budgets.

Do you really attribute those faults on "classic RPG design", and not simply "doing it wrong"?

Why something works in a specific game is the real question. It is the same thing with trying to force tactical/pause mode into a real time action..labels aside, they are based on different mechanics with very different goals: slow, elaborate planning vs. rhythm and flow. Try and you end up failing at both. Exactly the same thing is with rpg design of control over player actions (in isometric rogs) vs direct , immersive player control in third person modern games.

Result is incoherency: like watching a pianist trying to play two different songs (with very different tempos) at the same time.

One of the more frustrating things about these conversations is that I'm constantly driven to defend stuff I appreciate but have not specified that that's what I suggest. Like turnbased combat, like Morrowind, like RPG stats overriding everything, and so on.
The bias in your "three options" is also funny.
"We have three options; (a) Awful shit design. Eew. No fun allowed. Yuck. (b) My favorite. Golden standard. Certain success. Everybody's catered to. Everybody likes. Yay. (c) Meh."
I wouldn't completely sign that.

Actually the third option would easily be the most popular and easiest for CDPR.
And yes, it is an actual fact that very large majority of people dislikes gameplay systems in all of those games next to their successors, exactly because of contradiction between direct player actions and rpg systems deciding otherwise, personal taste of anyone here aside.

I think you mean classic "gameplay" not "gunplay". Because real life shooting has to take those factors into account unlike 99% of games.

That is the result of developers simply not including those elements for the sake of "simpler" gameplay. It is still far more realistic than shooting in an rpg, where no training in a weapon somehow simulates effects of Parkinson syndrome.

Only with the FPS crowd, the RPG crowd would love it.

See what I wrote above. It is not about Rpg vs. Fps "crowd"...it's about game designed coherently.

Such a hybrid system it would satisfy no one, the best they could hope for was not alienating everyone.

I see no reason why not.

Core mechanics would still be largely functional like in action game, but rpg system can still complement it, with enough complexity to allow very large variety of playstyles and char building.

Stats with classic bonuses. They would also affect effectiveness of implants( e.g. high perception on bullet time effect), direct visual feedback on basic player animations ( e.g agility on running animation), scaling on certain weapons( similar to Souls series), or even direct object interaction( e.g. strong players being able to lift and throw objects with greater force).
Skills would show gradual improvement on direct player actions, similar to Gothic weapon styles. Based on current rank, player could also learn unique actions to illustrate/advance his skill( similar to Rend/Whirl).
Perk system could have more dynamic impact on player actions and synergize progression between stats/skills/actions.
Secondary systems like stamina or adrenaline can also have it's own systems and with strong impact on gameplay.
All of this even without taking into account non combat builds, cyberware or customization/upgrade systems...would make for a far more robust and diverse progression system than any in the older, "True" rpgs.

What it cannot do, is bluntly/illogically override basic actions...rpg mechanics in crpgs were not designed in the same settings as modern third person games, offering anywhere near level of control and gameplay immersion.

And personally, I would rather see "Deus Ex/Arkane design" over something like in older Fallouts or Age of Decadence.
Latter, I find too rigid, archaic, inorganic, unimaginative, more oriented on pushing player down the narrow path and excessively punishing for trying to do what his character isn't good at. Don't have skill in gun?...sorry, your bullets will magically fly into orbit even when trying to shoot something that's half a meter in front of you.
The first simply gives you the tools and says: now go and play with it. Be creative, experiment how these things interact with one another, find your own solutions...that kind of gameplay( and progression) feels far more intuitive and rewarding in comparison.

 

[kofeiiniturpa]

What you are describing there is pretty much "just another action game with a perk tree" indistinguishable from its ilk by not else than art and story. Dynamic but also uninspired and tepid gameplay and dull perktree that lets you do somersaults, +10% damage and craft bigger backpacks and never digs deeper into the character than granting some mundane abilities. You are talking stuff like Far Cry 3, Far Cry 4, Fallout 4, Dying Light, Technomancer, what ever else...

The merits of a dynamic action simulation are neatly lined up and praised while the merits of an RPG are ignored and its mechanics shunned as "illogical" and "incoherent" for what I can only interpret as an inability to understand (and thus also accept) what they represent and why they do what they do. And that is not meant as a slight towards you, but just to underline the fundamental difference of perspective and perception we have here.

We are looking at very different experiences here.

Result is incoherency: like watching a pianist trying to play two different songs (with very different tempos) at the same time.

If the pianist has set up to play a piece that requires polyrythmic patterns (that might well sound like two different songs on top of each other; or is already is a medley), it is absolutely part of the composition and the "incoherency" is the listeners inability to listen what is meant to be heard. And such is not at all unheard of in music (there's jazz and then certain heavymetal bands base their entire sound on rythms that might seem completely random to the uninitiated). Music is a radical example, though, we're talking about stuff that's much easier to grasp and much less "incoherent" than you suggest (if incoherent is even accepted for the proper term to use here, which I don't).

And yes, it is an actual fact that very large majority of people dislikes gameplay systems in all of those games next to their successors, exactly because of contradiction between direct player actions and rpg systems deciding otherwise, personal taste of anyone here aside.

Those games were also popular nonetheless, and are now usually lookd back at fondly when the series (if there is such) has moved too far from where people got introduced to it. The change was usually sudden and forced and what was left between what was and what is, was left unexplored. The market is homogenized to the core right now. I think it would only do some good for someone outside of shoelace budget indies to try something a bit outside thebox; and what better opportunity that this here.


(posting with a phone is a fucking bitch, let me tell you...)

 

[Sardukhar]

Don't have skill in gun?...sorry, your bullets will magically fly into orbit even when trying to shoot something that's half a meter in front of you..

Heh. Mostly just scanning this thread for POLITENESS, but this made me smile. If you've ever gone shooting with a newbie or twitchy shooter before, especially handgun, yes, totally this. Well, not half a meter, but even a meter or two, sure. Absolutely.

Video games aren't realistic. The degree we pursue that is kind of a mind trick, albeit one I'm on board with. I don't want people running around at 80 kph ( without cyber) and headshotting at same speed either.

But, yeah, "realism" wise, without skill, you ain't likely to hit squat. Videogame shooting is NOT like the real thing and years of FPS' give us this idea we should all be rock-steady hyper-accurate pro shooters. Jerry Miculek go go go!

 

[Zagor-Te-Nay]

What you are describing there is pretty much "just another action game with a perk tree" indistinguishable from its ilk by not else than art and story. Dynamic but also uninspired and tepid gameplay and dull perktree that lets you do somersaults, +10% damage and craft bigger backpacks and never digs deeper into the character than granting some mundane abilities. You are talking stuff like Far Cry 3, Far Cry 4, Fallout 4, Dying Light, Technomancer, what ever else...
The merits of a dynamic action simulation are neatly lined up and praised while the merits of an RPG are ignored and its mechanics shunned as "illogical" and "incoherent" for what I can only interpret as an inability to understand (and thus also accept) what they represent and why they do what they do. And that is not meant as a slight towards you, but just to underline the fundamental difference of perspective and perception we have here.
We are looking at very different experiences here.

No...rpg does not mean leaving character absurdly incompetent if he does not invest in required skill. It is too narrow and outdated concept, that works poorly in this setting. And there is far more to game being rpg than defining it with % chance for success.

Dynamic but also uninspired and tepid gameplay and dull perktree that lets you do somersaults, +10% damage and craft bigger backpacks and never digs deeper into the character than granting some mundane abilities. You are talking stuff like Far Cry 3, Far Cry 4, Fallout 4, Dying Light, Technomancer, what ever else...

Like Fallout 2, for example? It's perk system is extremely similar to one you describe in "dull"/"tepid" gameplay in action games...vast majority consists of +x% or bonus, modifiers to existing statistics.
And then there are traits that cause enemies to EXPLODE! on death.

The merits of a dynamic action simulation are neatly lined up and praised while the merits of an RPG are ignored and its mechanics shunned as "illogical" and "incoherent" for what I can only interpret as an inability to understand (and thus also accept) what they represent and why they do what they do. And that is not meant as a slight towards you, but just to underline the fundamental difference of perspective and perception we have here.
We are looking at very different experiences here.

Every (decent) roleplaying game needs restrictions. What I keep repeating is that those restrictions need to be implemented in a way that does not go against more realistic simulation or obstructs real time gameplay in open world.
That means player skill having a larger factor, but for a lot of players that is also a plus...more immersive ( with more direct control), engaging and rewarding experience.
No slight to old crpgs: their mechanics were suited for their style of game. If CDPR was developing an isometric rpg here ( similar to PoE, Wasteland or DoS), then it would be an entirely different matter.

Those games were also popular nonetheless, and are now usually lookd back at fondly when the series (if there is such) has moved too far from where people got introduced to it. The change was usually sudden and forced and what was left between what was and what is, was left unexplored

But why did they move from that style of gameplay? If it was so popular, why wouldn't developers simply continue it? For Morrowind, it is about lore, culture, factions, (great) spell crafting, more extensive char build options, etc...but you will find few people to also include combat ( and how rpg mechanics worked with it).

The market is homogenized to the core right now. I think it would only do some good for someone outside of shoelace budget indies to try something a bit outside thebox; and what better opportunity that this here.

No one wants copy cat system here and lack of "identity" when it comes to gameplay design is CDPR's biggest problem. But neither should they ignore problems that similar games had and blindly do things for the sake of being "different". And repeating the same action/rpg design from early 3d rpgs would be no more "innovative" either.
For the most part, it is better to make a better wheel, than reinvent a new one.

 

[kofeiiniturpa]

No...rpg does not mean leaving character absurdly incompetent if he does not invest in required skill.

Whaaat?? Of course it does. You are not the character, you are playing him. He's your window to that world, and when the vision is blurred you have to deal with it until you can clarify and even enhance it. That's what the skills and progression are there for, to tell you where the role you are playing is at and what he is capable of at any given moment. Your job as a player is to play and progress according to what the role can and can not do. It's terrible design if the player is allowed and even encouraged to break the character through overt compensation of his inefficiencies; well, it's terrible for an RPG.

Like Fallout 2, for example?

The perks in the early Fallouts were more of an afterthrough. And the big thing to remember here is that they were - optional (just like the traits) - complementary features in the charcter system, and intended as "litlle cheats" to bend the rules in favor of the player, not the core of the sytem. And anyway, what point does bringing a 20-year-old game here as a "rebuttal"? It's like those arguments that Fallout had dull TB combat because you couldn't go prone and stuff, therefore this brand new game X should not be TB. And before someone asks, no that wasn't an implied suggestion.

Every (decent) roleplaying game needs restrictions.

Finally we agree on something.

What I keep repeating is that those restrictions need to be implemented in a way that does not go against more realistic simulation or obstructs real time gameplay in open world.

I can't say that give a hoot about "realistic simulation" as it is understood here -- you could understand it just the same in an RPG if the player would grasp the detachment between "ME" and "the character I play" -- because here it usually only means overt payer substitution of the character, and thus also degrading of the character systems and the roleplaying itself. It downgrades the game. This can be seen in any AAA RPG of recent years; highly inefficient "me too, look I have stats too, I'm an RPG" style "for-show-only" character systems in games that - from how they work - would've likely been better if designed without them altogether. The mainstream loves RPG's... when they don't at all play like one.

If the game is wanted to be a "realistic simulation" then it should not be called RPG, but "simulation".

That means player skill having a larger factor

Harmfully overt factor. People like that, no doubt, but if the assumption was that that's only what they like, that they can not like anything else, it'd be pretty fucked. No game has to be "for everyone", that's why they can and should differ. With the current technology and the current market... more than ever.

But why did they move from that style of gameplay?

Consoles and console market. It was different back then than it is now.

They aren't as restrictive anymore, though. There's no turning the tide completely, but there can be "new" (in today's context) and different design intentions.

No one wants copy cat system here

But that is what you are going to get with a "modern realistic simulation with a perk tree"; there'll be lots of nitpicking but X and but Y, but at its core and at its base functionality, it will be the same as any other of its kind. You can quote me on that when it becomes reality. And if I'm wrong and that is not where they are going with their game, you do not find a happier guy on these boards.

and lack of "identity" when it comes to gameplay design is CDPR's biggest problem

That it is.

But neither should they ignore problems that similar games had and blindly do things for the sake of being "different".

We'd have to know what exactly are those "similiar games" and in light of that what does it mean to be "different for the sake of it". Now it just sounds that "they should not try to do anything different".

For the most part, it is better to make a better wheel, than reinvent a new one.

That's what I'm suggesting. Make a better wheel and buy new tire to it so it workes with different conditions than before. Explore the possibilities of your wheel, do not lay down and be fine with it as it is.

 

[Zagor-Te-Nay]

Whaaat?? Of course it does. You are not the character, you are playing him. He's your window to that world, and when the vision is blurred you have to deal with it until you can clarify and even enhance it. That's what the skills and progression are there for, to tell you where the role you are playing is at and what he is capable of at any given moment. Your job as a player is to play and progress according to what the role can and can not do. It's terrible design if the player is allowed and even encouraged to break the character through overt compensation of his inefficiencies; well, it's terrible for an RPG.

But there is far more to it, than % success rate. RPG's are about decision making and consequences...from background, customization, dialogue, story choices, playstyles, etc, etc.

The perks in the early Fallouts were more of an afterthrough. And the big thing to remember here is that they were - optional (just like the traits) - complementary features in the charcter system, and intended as "litlle cheats" to bend the rules in favor of the player, not the core of the sytem. And anyway, what point does bringing a 20-year-old game here as a "rebuttal"? It's like those arguments that Fallout had dull TB combat because you couldn't go prone and stuff, therefore this brand new game X should not be TB. And before someone asks, no that wasn't an implied suggestion.

I disagree...along with basic stats and skill increase ( and a poor karma system), they were absolutely fundamental aspect of building your character, when it comes to gameplay.

I can't say that give a hoot about "realistic simulation" as it is understood here -- you could understand it just the same in an RPG if the player would grasp the detachment between "ME" and "the character I play" -- because here it usually only means overt payer substitution of the character, and thus also degrading of the character systems and the roleplaying itself. It downgrades the game. This can be seen in any AAA RPG of recent years; highly inefficient "me too, look I have stats too, I'm an RPG" style "for-show-only" character systems in games that - from how they work - would've likely been better if designed without them altogether. The mainstream loves RPG's... when they don't at all play like one.
If the game is wanted to be a "realistic simulation" then it should not be called RPG, but "simulation".

You see, this is the whole "crux" of the "problem"...you see mechanics ( almost like some set in stone rpg dogma), but completely ignore the setting they take place in. This game will ( and I'm 99.999% sure of this) play in realistic simulation of Night City. Copy pasting similar skill system like in older crpgs would not make it a "better rpg", only a more poorly designed video game.
I've stated why, a dozen times by now, it's pointless to repeat it.
And there are only three western AAA rpg developers currently compared to far more available crpgs on the market. It is more an "issue", for better or worse, of customization or basic perk system of being added to modern action games, but that does not make them rpgs. Simply a side effect of publishers increasing value/appeal of their games, by adding more "replayability" and customization options to the player.

Consoles and console market. It was different back then than it is now.

Eh, no. Definitely not. It is too easy and simplified approach to blame it all on "dumb new kids". Even on sites like codex, there are few people defending combat systems in those games, simply for being more tied to traditional rpg mechanics.
That Bioware and Bethesda went further in removing other aspects of roleplaying is another matter entirely, but core combat mechanics have absolutely improved.

But that is what you are going to get with a "modern realistic simulation with a perk tree"; there'll be lots of nitpicking but X and but Y, but at its core and at its base functionality, it will be the same as any other of its kind.

You're oversimplifying things to the bone. It will have far more complexity than most of older rpgs, while skills functioning more realistically and more fitting to it's setting.

Harmfully overt factor. People like that, no doubt, but if the assumption was that that's only what they like, that they can not like anything else, it'd be pretty fucked. No game has to be "for everyone", that's why they can and should differ. With the current technology and the current market... more than ever.

Do you not see the irony, of stating the game should not be designed in one way and stereotyping it as "dumb", while saying your preference is "objectively" better for the game? And there are a ton of older rpgs that are uniformly designed in the "same way". How is that any different?

This feels like re-re-repetition of the same theme, in the end our differences come down to:

Fans of older crpg's see skills mechanics and their restrictions (as they worked in those games) as vital part of roleplaying. If you have no investment in a particular skill, you have 0% chance of success...classic example, you will always miss your target even at point blank range.
Lack of close camera angle, basic control of your character and general design of the game, did not create a contradiction here between what the character does and what the player sees.

Modern games give us more personal, direct control of your character with worlds more complex, realistic and detailed than ever...making the whole experience more immersive and believable. But this also creates direct conflict with how classic rpg skills work with direct player control ( that older games lacked)...as a result their restrictions have to be toned down or presented to the player in a more intuitive way.
Good example of this done right: Gothic melee skills.

In the end it comes down to what people define as "roleplaying"...more character defined, but also more rigid and less intuitive system like in crpgs or more player skill baed like in modern ones.

But it is absolutely 100% inaccurate to say this makes the latter one less complex/more "dumb" as result. ( I'm not even a big fan of Souls series, but it's weapon/stat system completely annihilates almost any crpg when it comes to sheer variety of (combat) builds)

 

[Suhiira]

WOW!

Lot's here I'd like to respond to, too much in fact to make a coherent post, so I'll respond mostly without quotes.

A games mechanics should reflect they overall style of the game, if they don't then the game has "issues" that will very much annoy (or worse) its players.
You don't want FPS mechanics in a tactical game, nor do you want tactical mechanics in an shooter. Sorry, it's just not really possible for a game to be both a shooter and a tactical game. That said, some wargames do mix the two. You give general orders to the units you control and have the option to take direct control of one specific unit and aim and fire it's weapons. This works because ALL of the units you control are expendable, so if one, or several, are destroyed while you're directly controlling one it's no big deal. However this won't work in small scale games where your units are non expendable assets you need for future objectives, i.e. your team of runners.

Just because one style of game, or it's mechanics, is popular doesn't automatically make it the best choice for any new game being designed. You have to take into account the intent of the game. Adding shooter mechanics to a platformer would be silly. Adding them to an RPG where character skills. not player skills, matter is just as silly.
So the real "argument" here is ... should CP2077 be a shooter or an RPG? Sorry, it can't be both at the same time. No matter how much we may wish it could. So unless it's designed with two, separate, sets of game mechanics (possible, but not necessarily easy) it's got to be one or the other.

Not only can, but a "true" RPG must, override most player actions when it comes to character skill use. You are controlling a character, with different skills and abilities then those of the player.

Don't have skill in gun?...sorry, your bullets will magically fly into orbit even when trying to shoot something that's half a meter in front of you.

Having never fired a weapon (outside perhaps at a shooting range) most people assume you point your weapon at a target and automatically hit it, easy, anyone can do that. Why should a game make you miss, that's stupid? Real life firefights don't work the way they do in movies, or most games. So ... we have a case of what some people believe vs what other people know ... and like every case of belief (i.e. religion) no amount of logic and common sense will sway the true believer.
If it was as easy as you seem to think Zagor-Te-Nay why does the military have to spend weeks training people to use weapons???
And yes ... I've seen people shoot the moon and miss at point blank range (especially when firing fully automatic weapons) more then once in real life firefights.

You see, this is the whole "crux" of the "problem"...you see mechanics ( almost like some set in stone rpg dogma), but completely ignore the setting they take place in. This game will ( and I'm 99.999% sure of this) play in realistic simulation of Night City. Copy pasting similar skill system like in older crpgs would not make it a "better rpg", only a more poorly designed video game. I've stated why, a dozen times by now, it's pointless to repeat it. And there are only three western AAA rpg developers currently compared to far more available crpgs on the market. It is more an "issue", for better or worse, of customization or basic perk system of being added to modern action games, but that does not make them rpgs. Simply a side effect of publishers increasing value/appeal of their games, by adding more "replayability" and customization options to the player.

No, actually, you're the one that's ignoring the game and it's setting. CP2077 is intended to be an RPG. You want it to be a shooter.

 

[Zagor-Te-Nay]

No, actually, you're the one that's ignoring the game and it's setting. CP2077 is intended to be an RPG. You want it to be a shooter.

What I want it to be is a roleplaying game, with rpg mechanics adapted to the change in setting...from PnP to an open world game. Plenty of "old school" rpg fans do not see the difference between "dumbing down" and adaptation of core mechanics.

don't see why the premise of the rules should radically change even if the control scheme and camera placement does.

Not only can, but a "true" RPG must, override most player actions when it comes to character skill use. You are controlling a character, with different skills and abilities then those of the player.

But the degree of control that the player has today over his character is drastically higher than in isometric "true" rpgs that defined those mechanics.

To use an analogy, this is similar to how religious fanatics see their "Truth" as a divine relevation that fell from the sky all on it's own, without understanding it's a product of social/political circumstances of their time and as they change, so does their "Truth".

In games such as Fallout or Baldur's Gate you did not directly control aim of your character...as a result, it was perfectly fine for it to be entirely dictated by character stats and progression .

But you have to be blind not to see there is incompatibility between direct control that modern third person games are based on and one that is dictated by rpg statistics of older games...mixing oil and water.

Having never fired a weapon (outside perhaps at a shooting range) most people assume you point your weapon at a target and automatically hit it, easy, anyone can do that. Why should a game make you miss, that's stupid? Because real life firefights don't work the way they do in movies or games. Real life firefights don't work the way they do in movies, or most games. So ... we have a case of what some people believe vs what other people know ... and like every case of belief (i.e. religion) no amount of logic and common sense will sway the true believer. If it was as easy as you seem to believe Zagor-Te-Nay why does the military have to spend weeks training people to use weapons??? And yes ... I've seen people shoot the moon and miss at point blank range (especially when firing fully automatic weapons) more then once in real life firefights.

Then a game should directly convey player skill level through animation work. But not by notifications on the screen ( Morrowind) or by simply poorly illustrating it or overridingit ( Mass Effect, Alpha Protocol...).

Sorry, it's just not really possible for a game to be both a shooter and a tactical game.

That is entirely wrong. Just out of more recently released (and highly popular and acclaimed) games, I recommend giving MGSV or Rainbow Six Siege a try.

 

[Suhiira]

What I want it to be is a roleplaying game, with rpg mechanics adapted to the change in setting...from PnP to an open world game.

You've made it clear you want the player to control the aiming and firing of weapons. Thus you don't want an RPG, you want a shooter with RPG elements, i.e. most any shooter out there. You want the Cyperpunk setting, but that's merely background in a shooter type game as it has little to no effect on the players actions.

In an RPG that setting should (and usually does) effect the character, it determines the skills they have. The skills you as the player make use of.

Perfect example:

In games such as Fallout or Baldur's Gate you did not directly control aim of your character, so it was perfectly fine for it to be entirely dictated by character stats and progression . But you have to be blind not to see there is incompatibility between direct control that every modern third person games are based on and one that is dictated by rpg statistics of older games...oil and water.

Not at all, I'm 100% in favor of shooter types games giving the player direct control over their avatars aiming and shooting.
I'm 100% opposed to RPG type games doing so.

And I could care less "that every modern third person games are based on and one that is dictated by rpg statistics of older games" because they're actually not. They've borrowed the concepts of leveling and skills improving or becoming available based on level and totally ignored the heart of what makes an RPG. The character and their skills and knowledge as opposed to the player and theirs.

That is entirely wrong. Just out of more recently released (and highly popular and acclaimed) games, I recommend giving MGSV or Rainbow Six Siege a try.

Metal Gear Solid V and Rainbox Six Siege are both multiplayer shooters not single player games where one person controls the entire team. Now, if multiplayer is MANDATORY in CP2077 then your arguments/suggestions make perfect sense. But that's not gonna happen.

 

[Calistarius]

We are not the ones who decided to start saying that CP2077 needed to be a "True RPG", we are just continuing to use it... since that compleatly cames from CDPR them selves.

This is what Marcin Iwinski, the CEO of CD Projekt RED, has said him self in an IGN article:

IGN Question:
So what’s next after this game? Can you tell us anything about Cyberpunk 2077?

Marcin Iwinski's answer:
People have been asking me if Cyberpunk 2077 will have multiplayer or if it will be a straight-up shooter, and I tell them to relax, because it will be a true RPG game.

We are known for storytelling, and big game worlds, and so we’re taking all what we've learnt from previous three Witcher games, as well as the open-world aspect, and applying it to Cyberpunk 2077. So yes, it is an all-out RPG game, but we're looking at having a lot of new gameplay elements that I cannot talk about yet. One thing I can say for sure is that it is definitely NOT a multiplayer shooter.

The only problem we really have here right now is that none of us really know what a "True RPG" is to CDPR, what they mean when they say that.

And it does not really help that some of the info out there points towards a certain type of game, and other parts of it points to compleatly different kind of game, and yet other parts point to a mix between these types of games. No to mention all of the info out there which can be interprited in any number of ways so that it seems to fit both one or the other... or the third... type of game. And this is of course also true for the above quote I added... because you can read the above quote in a few ways which might or might not corroborate what we think it means, because as I said we don't really know what CDPR mean when they say these things.

 

[metalmaniac21]

But one must ask oneself - what is an RPG? (c) RPG Codex

Jokes aside, this article is three years old, now the term itself, RPG, is really vague, which is a shame. Now any TPS or FPS with skill trees like Horizon Zero Derp now considered RPG, Fallout 4 wears an RPG tag on Steam even though the only handwave to all shit this game have is that it's NOT an RPG.

You know, the same tag Baldur's Gate, Fallout and Planescape: Torment have. You know, the very definition of RPG.

Now even older action adventures are somehow considered RPGs. Beyond Oasis for Sega Genesis these times are as viable RPG as Shadowrun for the same console for example, and people arguing about it with all seriousness even though it's denying facts basically. Now, in present time, not earlier. You know, a Zelda-style game with inventory and health upgrades vs close adaptation of real PnP RPG with clear defining traits.

 

[Suhiira]

Well ... to quote Wikipedia:

A role-playing game (sometimes spelled roleplaying game and abbreviated to RPG) is a game in which players assume the roles of characters in a fictional setting. Players take responsibility for acting out these roles within a narrative, either through literal acting or through a process of structured decision-making or character development.Actions taken within many games succeed or fail according to a formal system of rules and guidelines.

There are several forms of RPG. The original form, sometimes called the tabletop RPG, is conducted through discussion, whereas in live action role-playing games (LARP) players physically perform their characters actions. In both of these forms, an arranger called a game master (GM) usually decides on the rules and setting to be used, acting as referee, while each of the other players plays the role of a single character.

Several varieties of RPG also exist in electronic media, such as multi-player text-based MUDs and their graphics-based successors, massively multiplayer online role-playing games (MMORPGs). Role-playing games also include single-player role-playing video games in which players control a character or team who undertake quests, and may include capabilities that advance using statistical mechanics. These games often share settings and rules with tabletop RPGs, but emphasize character advancement more than collaborative storytelling.

Despite this variety of forms, some game forms such as trading card games and war-games that are related to role-playing games may not be included. Role-playing activity may sometimes be present in such games, but it is not the primary focus.

I'd amend that final statement to read:

Despite this variety of forms, some game forms such as trading card games, war-games, and first person shooters that are related to role-playing games may not be included. Role-playing activity may sometimes be present in such games, but it is not the primary focus.

And therein lays the real issue.
The focus of an RPG is playing a character. Leveling or skill improvement mechanics do not make a game an RPG.