Gameplay - depth vs complexity vs fun

[Guest 4149880]

Nah. They not only have awards, but the series itself has sold 25 million copies. That's about twice as many as an action-heavy game like Dark Souls, series of which has sold about 13 million as of 2016. So in terms of both critical and financial success, in the action RPG genre, CDPR obviously knows what they are doing.

Just because you don't like how they do gameplay doesn't mean their millions of fans, who bought the games and the expansions, agree.

Games that focus heavily on gameplay over story aren't RPGs at all, really. And CDPR makes RPGs. Very popular and well-received RPGs.

Much prefer Witcher 3 gameplay design to some esoteric twitch-based gameplay plan. Ugh.

A game that's action orientated over story doesn't mean its any less a role playing game. With that mindset, Cyberpunk 2077 won't be considered an RPG compared to the original PnP, because it will be gameplay focused.

As far as sales, sure both Witcher and Dark Souls series both sold well, doesn't mean either game exceeds over the other in all areas of game content. While Witcher has a straight forward presented story, it unintentionally lacks in gameplay and its easy over all, so its much more mainstream. While Dark Souls lacks in a cohesive straight forward story but excels at gameplay and it lacks in sales in comparison based on its sheer difficulty alone.

Just because you don't like the skill based gameplay as the Souls series doesn't mean their millions of fans, who bought all the games in the series and surrounding games and dlc, agree. Yes CDPR makes RPG's, as do other developers make games that are RPG's, regardless of views on how they are created. Many other series have outsold Witcher in sales as well. Skyrim alone outsold the entire Witcher series, does that mean Witcher 3 is any less an RPG? No, and others would agree.

 

[Sardukhar]

Skyrim alone outsold the entire Witcher series, does that mean Witcher 3 is any less an RPG? No, and others would agree.

No, it means I'd think twice about trying to tell Bethesda how to do their successful game series. Or go into Dark Souls Land and do the same. This is the CDPR forums and they represent a certain very successful way of doing things.

There are other places for other methods like those used in Skyrim. Bethesda does what they do well, but they don't focus much on gameplay.

Their gameplay is tres simple. Simple melee, simple spell casting, simple crafting, simple skills. Simpler nowadays. They focus on open world and story, actually. And lots and lots of story. Same for Fallout 4. They went and made the gameplay even simpler. But the depth of their storytelling tends to be shallow.

We had the what-is-an-RPG discussion a few times, but there for sure is a scale. You can have an RPG without gameplay to speak of - purely narrative-driven - as long as you have choice and consequences so that the role you play is an actual role. You can't have an RPG without story - there is no narrative framework to roleplay in. No ground for the role to walk on.

In this sense I speak of the pretend-to-be-someone-else "role" not the tactical role or passive-watcher role that some games have. If you cannot influence the story with your choices, then you aren't really playing that role at all, you're just acting out a preset script.

In short, it's highly unlikely CDPR is going to break a successful formula for them, making games they like that work out well, in order to please people who would prefer other games' methods.

And if they did, I can bet you that they are more likely to look at Skyrim and Fallout 4, because, yes, financial success matters.

 

[EvilWolf]

Games that focus heavily on gameplay over story aren't RPGs at all ? Oh Really, look at the The Elder Scrolls or Fallout I don't think it has any good story However they are RPG no doubt

I hope you are being sarcastic. Recent iterations of The Elder Scrolls (excluding ES:O) and Fallout aren't RPGs. Every iteration of The Elder Scrolls took away RPG feature after RPG feature until it would be a mistake to refer to Skyrim as an "RPG". You're kidding yourself if you, seriously, think Bethesda's Fallout games are RPGs. Both games are open world action-adventure games with, at MOST, RPG (ultra)light features.

 

[kofeiiniturpa]

Witcher series isn't all that different. It's (far) better at telling a heavy narrative and it has tighter gameplay (which is not always a good thing), but it's also quite lightweight as an RPG. Where Bethesda's things are leaning for open world simulation, Wircher games are more like narrative driven action adventures (pretty light on the RPG aspects... few CYOA elements and a small perktree).

 

[Suhiira]

I really hope CDPR sticks to it's guns and makes CP2077 an RPG first and foremost.

Look at Fallout/Skyrim/Dragons Age, each started as decent (or better) RPGs and have become more and more action games over the years, more and better combat, less and worse dialog.

 

[kofeiiniturpa]

RPGs and have become more and more action games over the years, more and better combat...

I wouldn't say "better". Just different. Faster, simpler, more controller friendly, and more about reaction than tactics.

 

[Lisbeth_Salander]

I'm worried they're moving too fast here. Designing coherent systems of this complexity will be a massive undertaking for studio with little experience and acclaim in gameplay design, whose own motto is "Story first, gameplay second".

Not to mention, they must give focus to gameplay aspects in order to gather the whole multiplayer crowd.

Games that focus heavily on gameplay over story aren't RPGs at all, really. And CDPR makes RPGs. Very popular and well-received RPGs. Much prefer Witcher 3 gameplay design to some esoteric twitch-based gameplay plan. Ugh.

Why the hell does a "true rpg" has to focus in only one of them anyways? It's either gameplay or story, right? Why not focus on both? Can't CDPR give focus to both gameplay features and story aspects at the same time, but more importantly, shouldn't they? Jesus people, not everything is black and white.

Oh yeah. RPGs started with PNPs that are mainly focused on telling a story rather than on gameplay features. But in terms of replayability, Pen and Paper games have way more replayability than any virtual RPGs due to their almost unrestricted possibilities and ways of doing the story due to the imagination of the players, while the virtual games are way more restricted with how and what to do during missions due to their programing. So, someone can play a PNP game in more different ways than a virtual game like Witcher 3.

Until we're making games that have thousands or hundreds of choices like PNPs, gameplay is the way to make gamers stay many hours playing them, over and over again in entertaining ways. At the moment, gameplay is utterly superior than story in terms of replayability. But the question is, is replaiability utterly superior than a narrative story in terms of making money? While the Last of Us and Telltale games are popular, games like Battlefield, Overwatch and GTA are dominating the market, but more importantly, the majority of gamers that play games that are focused on story have less time spent on said games, when compared to gamers who play games that are focused on gameplay.

Of course that doens't define what a RPG is, but to say that the story is what it is all about is maybe a disconsideration that the gameplay itself is also a way of telling a story. Think about it, the developers at this very moment could make a cutscene of a car chasing scene in Night City, but instead they could let the player drive the car by himself. Given the choice of making the game more interactive or less, guess which one the developers will chose? This my friend is perhaps the future: a game that tells a story with almost no cutscenes at all.

Now, having in mind that dialogues are essentially story, and action sequences are hugely based on gameplay. In games we have dialogue scenes, and action sequences separetedly, while in movies sometimes action sequences happen during dialogue scenes. And considering that games are taking direct inspiration from movies, games today are making the line between action and story, a thin line. Think about it, in some PNP games the player can start a shooting during a dialogue sequence, wouldn't that be a smart move to give the players even more options, shouldn't they do the same in a virtual game? If that happened, would it be considered a gameplay aspect or a story one related to dialogue? Hey, if it improves the game, then who cares what it is? That's the point. When some of you are probably thiking I'm saying gameplay is more important than story, I'm not, I'm saying that both gameplay and story elements are equally important, even in a virtual RPG game.

The nice part is that Mr. Iwinski mentioned interactive cutscenes in one of his interviews, when talking about innovative gaming technologies.

Sure, CDPR got where they are by focusing more on story, but as Marcin Iwinski said, "Witcher 3 is not even in the top 10 most sold games of 2015", its time for change, and not stop caring about story kinda of change. They can keep doing things the way they are, giving story a big focus, but couldn't they also give more focus on the gameplay elements?

My argument is that, when making this thin line between gameplay and story. Focusing on gameplay aspects can also improve the story. They're both important in a virtual game like Cyberpunk 2077, it's not one or the other, both can exist side by side.

 

[Guest 4149880]

No, it means I'd think twice about trying to tell Bethesda how to do their successful game series. Or go into Dark Souls Land and do the same. This is the CDPR forums and they represent a certain very successful way of doing things.

There are other places for other methods like those used in Skyrim. Bethesda does what they do well, but they don't focus much on gameplay.

Their gameplay is tres simple. Simple melee, simple spell casting, simple crafting, simple skills. Simpler nowadays. They focus on open world and story, actually. And lots and lots of story. Same for Fallout 4. They went and made the gameplay even simpler. But the depth of their storytelling tends to be shallow.

We had the what-is-an-RPG discussion a few times, but there for sure is a scale. You can have an RPG without gameplay to speak of - purely narrative-driven - as long as you have choice and consequences so that the role you play is an actual role. You can't have an RPG without story - there is no narrative framework to roleplay in. No ground for the role to walk on.

In this sense I speak of the pretend-to-be-someone-else "role" not the tactical role or passive-watcher role that some games have. If you cannot influence the story with your choices, then you aren't really playing that role at all, you're just acting out a preset script.

In short, it's highly unlikely CDPR is going to break a successful formula for them, making games they like that work out well, in order to please people who would prefer other games' methods.

And if they did, I can bet you that they are more likely to look at Skyrim and Fallout 4, because, yes, financial success matters.

This isn't really a discussion about what makes a true RPG anymore, as it is what's the more successful video game. Because as with any true RPG, you can drive the story forward through any choice you make in a game world being presented to you, not by you like a PnP vs a video game RPG where its basically a main character driven story being presented, allowing you to pick a set number of choices for that character that aren't really your own, to complete a story a certain way. Other video game RPG's present the story through the setting/world/npcs with no character driven narrative, only a world presented to you and how you play, and still sell very well. So there are many ways to make a video game based RPG, and i'd say none of them are wrong. Its preference

And CDPR does have a great formula while not perfect. And its not about wanting them to change anything about their games to please anyone wanting a different type of game. Its about saying one game is a true type of game,RPG or genre over another because of sales or how they choose to make a game, which is obviously debatable.

Its really about how the game is made as a whole rather then its individual parts, because if Witcher was made without much of a story only to run around fighting badass monsters, it would have still sold well in a video game form, and Witcher story alone has obviously sold well in book form. But there's more to video game sales then breaking it down to story vs gameplay balance. Its game content and replay ability, difficulty and over all features of the game that adds to what people enjoy.

Fallout 4 success wasn't its RPG mechanics and "awesome story" and I don't agree it should set bar for what all RPG should try and be. As you "role play" a player created character only to be voice acted out with limited dialog and to have limited choices. That balance of who you want your character to be and the game presenting a main character was not in Fallout 4. That's not my idea of a good RPG and how it should be done and a lot of people agree but it, sold well anyway but does that mean its the BEST? No, and games that have sold less do it better.

 

[kofeiiniturpa]

Games that focus heavily on gameplay over story aren't RPGs at all, really.

That's just not true. The narrative (for the "role" to exist - whether a party or a single character) does not need to be heavyhanded or overbearing. At all. It can all amount to an initial kickoff, few checkpoints to count your progress and dealings, and a conclusion as per your chosen route. And 90% outside that is cold hard gameplay.

Oh yeah. RPGs started with PNPs that are mainly focused on telling a story rather than on gameplay features.

Actually, the RPG's evolved from fantasy wargames. And there's quite a lot of gameplay and numbercrunching to be had in PnP games (unless you houserule that out and minimize gameplay to mean GM telling you a story and asking occasionally "what will you do now").

Other than that, I agree with the notion that gameplay can create storytelling on its own too. Not evertyhing needs to be a written down epoc.

 

[Lisbeth_Salander]

Not to mention that with 200 employers CDPR could make Witcher 3, now they have 450-500, why not give more attention to gameplay mechanics while not losing their current focus on story? It's a win-win situation. This is basically what @LegateLaniusThe2nd said but a little bit less agressive.

Giving more attention to gameplay does not imply throwing any story aspects in the trash.

Actually, the RPG's evolved from fantasy wargames.

That doens't count. I was talking about meaningfull beguinings.

It's the same as saying the first important human was the "Homo Erectus" because they discovered fire, and you said it was genetically the "Homos", but you forgot that the "homos" didn't do shit. That's why nobody remember the "Homos", because they were losers.

Spoiler

This isn't really a discussion about what makes a true RPG anymore, as it is what's the more successful video game.

It's both. Because we're dealing with hardcore and casuals.

 

[kofeiiniturpa]

You don't think it was a meaningful beginning? The foundation...? And fire?

The erect homo is sad to hear that. He tried so hard to become us, and this is the thanks for it.

 

[Guest 4149880]

'

Not to mention that with 200 employers CDPR could make Witcher 3, now they have 450-500, why not give more attention to gameplay mechanics while not losing their current focus on story? It's a win-win situation. This is basically what @LegateLaniusThe2nd said but a little bit less agressive.

Giving more attention to gameplay does not imply throwing any story aspects in the trash.



That doens't count. I was talking about meaningfull beguinings.

It's the same as saying the first human was the "Homo Erectus" because they discovered fire, and you said it was genetically the "Homos", but you forgot that the "homos" didn't do shit. That's why nobody remember the "Homos", because they were losers.

Spoiler

It's both. Because we're dealing with hardcore and casuals.

No, we're dealing with everyone's opinions and their preference of games. Facts are, the games and there features are right there for everyone to see, whether or not everyone agrees with them is why this discussion continues. Saying you're hardcore or casual doesn't make an opinion any more valid than the other.

 

[kofeiiniturpa]

Not to mention that with 200 employers CDPR could make Witcher 3, now they have 450-500, why not give more attention to gameplay mechanics while not losing their current focus on story?

They really, really should.
It's curious, though. This bloating of the dev costs.
In the past, developers had hard time fitting all the cool ideas in their games and gameplay for technical reasons (floppies could only fit so much). Some did it (and made things that still to this day are revered as one of the best), some couldn't. Now, today, they are able to do everything with the technology, but use their 100-500-man teams and settle for the most vapid designs imaginable, and use their 100 million dollar budgets on shit like cutscenes, motion capture, graphics and voice acting, and of course TV and billboard ads. (That is polarized comment, but you can well see there's a lot of truth in it if you look at games today in general).

 

[KyleRowley]

I'm worried they're moving too fast here. Designing coherent systems of this complexity will be a massive undertaking for studio with little experience and acclaim in gameplay design, whose own motto is "Story first, gameplay second".

Come for the Story, stay for the Gameplay

 

[kofeiiniturpa]

Sounds swell if it works.

 

[Suhiira]

I wouldn't say "better". Just different. Faster, simpler, more controller friendly, and more about reaction than tactics.

Isn't that the definition of "better" in action/FPS games?

Come for the Story, stay for the Gameplay

Ideally this is true and will work.
Problem is, most action/FPS gamers find Story to be a distraction (or downright annoyance) from what they value in a game, and most RPGers aren't big fans of action/FPS Gameplay because neither tends to be character (as opposed to player) centric.
Sure there are people that don't fit into neat boxes, but I'm speaking in general.

There's to hoping you guys/gals can pull it off !
:cheers:

As to the design of whatever system (I'm still hoping for the dual system approach) CDPR decides on, they have the time and talent to do it well so for me that's a total non concern.

Will CP2077 feature Gameplay mechanics that will please everyone?
*ROFL*
Everyone has their own perspective on what's good/bad so that's clearly impossible.

 

[kofeiiniturpa]

Isn't that the definition of "better" in action/FPS games?

Sure. Hmm. I understood it as if you were saying combat got better with the games striving away from being RPG's, not that they became "better FPS games". Oh well.

 

[Suhiira]

Sure. Hmm. I understood it as if you were saying combat got better with the games striving away from being RPG's, not that they became "better FPS games". Oh well.

My apologies, I should have been more clear.

But I'm not entirely sure you're not correct.
Does striving to become better FPS games require moving away from being good RPGs?

To quote Shakespaere (Hamlet) - "To be or not to be, that is the question".

 

[0248991]

Maybe it would be cool to make some new elements, which would make the game more interesting and fluent.

Gameplay:
- when player gets hit by some stunning weapon - e.g. paralizer, freezer,.. , key bindings are reverted or randomly remapped for the duration, slowed reading, not responding,..
- effects on screen as with water hag in Witcher 3
- sell more the work done. In witcher 3, there was economy system, where things cost more or less depending on many things - quests, distance to water, specialization of merchant, but no one ever heard about it. Just click 50 times to sell all random things you got from all treasures on the last quest, and click 50 times to buy whole gear for that. It could be done more precisely.
e.g. - see price highlighted in green if it costs less depending on anything, make merchant say fish will cost more because it haven't rained for long time, make illegal middleman close browsing items on its own, because it doesn't want to show its goods for long time. Maybe make changing items - e.g. merchant won' sell its precious item normally, but it would like to change it for something else,..
- make attacks not just left-click, but more interactive
e.g. to toss something, player needs to hold mouse button, fastly move with mouse and release button. All things like speed, trajectory, etc would be defined by mouse movement and moment of releasing button, etc..

Optimization:
- instead of creating passages to have time to load some wide area and even after see meshes popping around, this could be done somewhat as in WOW with bit of responsiveness to player
e.g. if location is not loaded yet, turn traffic lights to red and somehow disable or slow down player going there.
- instead of loading 3rd and maybe 2nd LODs, load 3D rotate-able picture of location. Meshes wont be loaded at all. Similar as in photography, merging photos to create large fake image.
- instead of using heavy particle effects, or computing shadows live at runtime, these could all be prebaked.
e.g. create 24 lightmaps for whole map, each representing 1 hour, and make these maps stream-able as player moves;
instead of rain particle effect, which i guess is computed over huge area, create prebaked image of moving raindrops with fake 3D effect and merge it to the very final screen send to display. Simulation of wet clothes could be done not by being hit by rain particles, but by intersection with rain area.

 

[kofeiiniturpa]

Does striving to become better FPS games require moving away from being good RPGs?

I think it does. Mechanically you are substituting the character and thus he can not be himself, good or bad by his own merit but good or bad stictly by your coordination -- what kind of role to play is a "me" rather than "my analog". CYOA elements and interactive storytelling are only a part of the package.

The character you create is a window through which you observe his world, through his flaws and merits and less so "yours". Be in control, nominally, but accept the role is not "you" even if you might've built him as your "in-world" analog.

I couldn't figure out a fitting Shakespeare quote here.