Gameplay - depth vs complexity vs fun

[Rawls]

Anything else and it's doomed

I wouldn't say it's doomed if they do something more like what you're suggesting. Lots of things can work if they're done well. I just personally would like it less. But I do think FPS and RPGs can be combined in a way that is both fun and allows for character skill to be heavily involved.

I think it still can be both character skills and player skills blended, but that they player ought to have the control because otherwise it's more game-y and less immersive.

 

[kofeiiniturpa]

I wouldn't say it's doomed if they do something more like what you're suggesting.

Heh. That sounds weird. It's not really (specifically) about "what I'm suggesting". We're adults and I'm sure neither of us is quite that vain to cry about "why don't they make a game for me". I'm speaking more about the general idea of thinking outside the box. Why couldn't something else than what mainstream people liked yesterday work? How to introduce something newish and a bit out of the ordinary, and what would make stuff like that work for the general populace.

See, what I liked about the classica RPG's (along with the general trappings like RNG, TB combat and stuff), was that there was always this certain kind of thought process and feel involved in going to places, exploring and interacting with stuff that came from the combination of the different gameplay elements (characterbuilding, uncertainty, unpredictability, all the potential those elements brought with them... and combat too). It was fun explore because it wasn't just a journey between instaces of frantic buttonmashing and some dialog cutscenes. The way the charactersystems worked and how the party or character developed and how that reflected to the interaction and reactivity in the world told its own ever changing story beside the scripted narrative and gave it new flavor with each new character build.

I believe something like that can still be done and should be strived for. It doesn't need to necessarily be a familiar experience from other games (Telltale came with a somewhat bold concept on a zombie game and triumphed, Firaxis made a bold decision to revive XCOM not as an expected action title but something else entirely and they did well... that's just a couple of example and those games aren't breaking into anything really new with their concepts, just doing something old rather well within a modern framework). CDPR representative has said "dicerolls are superboring", but rather than being reductive and defeatist, how about thinking how to make a diceroll engaging or intriguing. E.g. a simple binary success/fail might well be considered "boring" -- I don't, but that's beside the point -- but what if there were degrees or states of success and failure, that even if you do everything exactly the same in subsequent runthroughs and are successful, you still get a somewhat different result than before? What if failure was made beneficial or interesting in some manner....? There's a boatload of things to consider and think about on how to push the envelope.

That's what I'm thinking. That's what I'd like to see done - to what ever degree possible - at least once more, the last time was somewhere around 20+ ago when games did surprisingly a lot more than they do today (not just by merit of allowing to do stuff, but how it was allowed and/or disallowed).

 

[Lisbeth_Salander]

Those sorts of hybrid 50/50 systems are exactly what piss the FPS crowd off.

"I was at 2m and pointing right at his face, how could I possibly miss!"

Enemies with smart A.Is are one of the most important things that make the game challenging. Not bullet sponge enemies, not gameplay with lots of missed shots, not taking forever to level up, but enemies with smart Artificial Inteligences. Specially if CDPR is going to be based on player's skills.

Spoiler

Also good gameplay design.

 

[Calistarius]

CDPR representative has said "dicerolls are superboring"

Which is something I find to be really sad that some at CDPR, and a lot of people in general, feels that way... because dice rolling is one of my favorit things about pen and paper rpg's, and rpg's in general.

Dice rolling, and stuff like % chance of things happening, etc, makes things interesting in my opinion... an it can also mean that there is a chance that a scenario in a game will play out differently each time you play through it thanks to random chance.

Most games which I tend to come back to play again the most tend to be games which has a lot of random chance of things happening (be it hitting or missing, random loot, having a failed or successful conversation based on some kind of speech skill, etc). Games, which do not have this random element to them, are game I might still like a lot, and rate very highly, but chances are that I will not come back to them again for a very long time, if at all (unless there is something else in the game which pulls me back in)... like most FPS games out there. I love Crysis and Farcry for example (they are my favorit FPS games actually), but I have so far played most of then only once (have not played Crysis 3 or FC 4 yet, due to not having had a computer that could handle them when they came out). The same goes for most Action RPG's in my mind to as well, I really like them, but usually they don't have much of a replay value for me (not even the ones which have multiple endings)... partly because most of them mostly lacks, or compleatly lacks, any significant amounts of random chance in them.

 

[NukeTheMoon]

In practice it would be something like:
- The crosshair is NOT the chracters aim, but simply a targeting tool.
- Take it near the enemy (or object) like you would in normal shooter.
- Press and hold RMB as if bringing up iron sights in a normal shooter,
- but here the reticle sticks to the enemys chest and a coloured bar starts to grow on the side of the reticle with a % number beside it.
- While still holding RMB, move the mouse towards different bodyparts to select them as a target.
- Choose when to shoot. The Green bar indicates the best time, but it resets after a while so be precise.

That sounds like Fallout 4 with combat only in VATs with AP generation increased to compensate DPS.
I'd wager there's already something like that somewhere. Nothing new under the sun.

Those sorts of hybrid 50/50 systems are exactly what piss the FPS crowd off.
"I was at 2m and pointing right at his face, how could I possibly miss!"
So no, hybrid systems don't "work", they just annoy everyone.

I just wanted to get to the numb of the matter. There is an impasse here. I do think what kofeiiniturpa is suggesting is unrealistic in the current market.

The game will have more typical shooter gameplay, of that I am certain. I'll adapt to whatever comes along.

The issues that Dues Ex had for a majority of players reveal why it's better to have more direct control in combat over one's actions.
I suspect few people prefer TW1 combat over TW3 combat for example.

The question is just about Character Skill implementation in shooter combat. There's going to be a thousand different opinions on this.

 

[mcflurry928]

CDPR may surprise us all and come up with something totally ingenious and clever.

I think CDPR will go for the RPG approach where each stat and skill contribute to the outcome of the fight. Sure items are important but nothing beats tactics and skills. I don't think this will be run and gun type of game, but more focused on how to best approach to the situation at hand. I don't think the MC will be able to do everything, not even Solos. Sure, they are skilled combat gods, but they lack technological prowess to hack and so on. So not everything can be brute forced. Stealth might play a key role in this game, but I don't think CDPR is gonna let that be win all end all. The AIs could have anti stealth techs installed into their system and counter you very easily. What I certainly hope is real time combat because we don't need another VAT system or turn based combat system. It feels sluggish and slow and not very dynamic to the fight. I think gameplay should be exciting again. Fun and dynamic. Not simplified watered down. FPS cover system based game is inevitable. I totally wouldn't mind if they implemented third party system as well. I think it could work out great. A fight should not be easy and should be challenging. Every enemy AI should be dynamic and be able adopt to different situations like the MC. Every fight against other solos, netrunners, nomads should feel like boss fight. It'd be plain impossible if they implemented OpenAI into enemy AIs, so please no OpenAI CDPR

 

[kofeiiniturpa]

That sounds like Fallout 4 with combat only in VATs with AP generation increased to compensate DPS.
I'd wager there's already something like that somewhere. Nothing new under the sun.

It's not quite like that. There are similirities, but they end at %-checks and being able to target bodyparts. It also has to be at least something, what ever degree, "new under the sun" if neither of us can figure out what other games did it (I know none). And at the very least conceptually "newer"/"fresher" than regular shooter combat.

I do think what kofeiiniturpa is suggesting is unrealistic in the current market.

Of course it is (or would be assumed to be). Just like anything else that isn't a typical every saturday action shooter everybody immediately knows how to play and master, and know what kind of exact experience they'll get from having seen and played it plenty of times in other games (new and old) already.

That's why I'm trying to push for something less ordinary. I think it's called for. I think not trying to do something differently and going with common strokes is a (gross) waste of opportunity and potential here.

I'll adapt to whatever comes along.

That tends to relieve the cook from all pressure to come up with something special and just do the usual fish and chips.

Dice rolling, and stuff like % chance of things happening, etc, makes things interesting in my opinion...

Agreed. It can also tell a little story if its own, in a way (for people who are into storytelling and roleplaying). So you missed a shot at 95% chance. Why? You can think of it as just stupid rng fucking you over again, but there are other ways to look at it too.

Compare to a situation where you come home and as you take the keys to the lock, your hand slips and you drop them. You just failed at opening a door with a key. Why? How does that happen to anyone? Maybe you were tired after work and preoccupied with some workrelated matters that you shoved the key an inch to the left of the lock. You pick the keys up and approach the lock and whoops, you drop them again. What are the odds to that? You just failed twice at opening a door with a key.

Stuff like that happens all the time. When you miss a shot it might be because of a fly that buzzed to your mouth or a sudden cramp at your toe, what ever. A bit of imagination accompanying the raw mechanic and it's a different experience.

 

[Calistarius]

Yep, that is almost exactly how I look at it: Shit happens... even to professionals... XD

I also look at it the other way around... where you might end up going for a hail mary pass with almost no chance of success... where circumstances ended up with you actually somehow making that unbelivable shot at 100 meters through a 5cm big hole in the wall hitting your intended target who was hiding behind said wall... or something. XD

That is why I like that your ability to hit things in games like Fallout 3/NV/4, or Mass Effect, or Alpha Protocol, with manually aiming, is to some varied extent based on how many points you have put into the relevent weapon skill. I just wish they went even further with it then what they do, went even closer to something like Fallout 1 and 2 with it... or the pc game adaptation of the boardgame Mordheim.

Actually... I thing I would enjoy the idea of playing an rpg (Cyberpunk 2077 included) with a simmilar kind of mechanics that Mordheim uses for it's pc game (it is actually fairly simmilar to how Valkyria Chronicles handles it's combat)... but maybe a bit more detailed then that (so add the part about aiming for a targets body parts for example). That would be cool I feel.

 

[NukeTheMoon]

It's not quite like that. There are similirities, but they end at %-checks and being able to target bodyparts. It also has to be at least something, what ever degree, "new under the sun" if neither of us can figure out what other games did it (I know none). And at the very least conceptually "newer"/"fresher" than regular shooter combat.


Of course it is (or would be assumed to be). Just like anything else that isn't a typical every saturday action shooter everybody immediately knows how to play and master, and know what kind of exact experience they'll get from having seen and played it plenty of times in other games (new and old) already...............That's why I'm trying to push for something less ordinary. I think it's called for. I think not trying to do something differently and going with common strokes is a (gross) waste of opportunity and potential here.


That tends to relieve the cook from all pressure to come up with something special and just do the usual fish and chips.

If you're going to advocate for traditional Character control then you need to define, exactly, how it would work.
Saying that there are too many "Shooters" out there is really saying nothing.
We discussed Dues Ex, people said that system sucked. I understand their viewpoint completely. Okay. Moving on.

There's still the SS2 system. Being that the damage you do was based on your character "researching" aliens to do more damage, weapon upgrades, weapon skills, etc.
It was character controlled in a different way. Apparently also in a more agreeable way than Dues Ex.

I disagree that enemies were spongy, they were not unless you were talking about the rare Assasins, Midwives or Rumblers, and even they went down easy with the right ammo.I will say that ammunition was moderately available and weapons had a slow firing rate.

The difference with SS2 is that unlike Dues Ex, where at low skill levels enemies were ridiculously hard to hit accurately, in SS2 enemies were always ridiculously easy to hit. Anywhere in a giant square around them was their hitbox.

The was also no headshotting, or anything like that. Making hits was easy, the effect of a hit was determined by the Character stats. Limiting Player control of effect to put emphasis on Character control of the effect.

If I were to try to emphasize Character control in a FPS, that would be a way to do it.
Each hit could have it's own little output in the message box just like TW3 tells you when you score a critical hit, or more in depth like Fallout 2 damage reports.


As for the comment about the cook in the kitchen, pretty sure CDPR has already followed their own recipe.
The difference is one of us is going to eat happily, the other might see a side dish ( the combat ) they don't like and throw the whole three coarse meal out the window.
This discussion of our ideas for implementing Character control for a third-person-shooter in their game is entirely academic.
So be academic with a positive attitude.


As for "dice rolls" in a video game... dice rolls in vidogames with quick-save and quick-load just means a lot of time spent on the loading screen for most people.
I'm sure CDPR realizes that, which is why dialogue options like Persuasion, Intimidate or Axii succeed or failed based on your character stats in TW2 and Axii in TW3, if I remember correctly.

 

[NukeTheMoon]

Deus ex fight system was horrible. Felt floaty and just annoying. Weapons should hit where i point with bullet spread depending on weapon.

Strenght affecting on recoil is ok, but skill affecting accuracy? Big no.

How do you feel about the System Shock 2 system of hitting enemies? Just curious, as it's the polor opposite of Dues Ex, yet achieves the same thing.

 

[kofeiiniturpa]

If you're going to advocate for traditional Character control then you need to define, exactly, how it would work.

I thought I did that. What do want me to define, exactly?

Saying that there are too many "Shooters" out there is really saying nothing.

It says exactly what it says.

There's still the SS2 system.

And I'm opposed to that. Skill for damage design, that is. Most of todays pseudo RPG's do it and most often it only leads to experience that is irrelecant and monotone. You are constantly being succesful there, every time you shoot and hit you are pumping up the rewards from the enemy (in for of HP), little by little. It always works the same, there's no level of surprise or bigger and smaller successes, just the monotone grind that is same for all character levels aside from the time it takes. Combat at its core is unchanged from the start to the end of the game. Unless you really suck balls at pointing a cursors (in which case you are screwed regardless of the character skill).

Unsirprising, grindy, monotone. Unfun.

Compare that to a system where damage is pretty much the same throughout the game, and you are allowed to and even likely to fail, where success is not guaranteed and increasing your odds might require a bit of concentration and patience. But when you do hit it, it delievers huge payoff immediately. Not simply papercutting the enemies to death, but possibly killing them there if the bullet hits the right spot.

I do believe that if you reward the hit properly, if you give it enough puch even if it doesn't outright kill the target, the frustration of missing consecutive shots (or swings) goes away or at least is mitigated greatly.

The nuFallouts (at least 3 and NV) went a bit of both ways and people complained about missing. Of course they did when hitting the target did nothing but a scratch, there's an unrewarding success.

As for the comment about the cook in the kitchen, pretty sure CDPR has already followed their own recipe.

And I keep hoping they have had the wisdom to think about it and reiterate it to not simply give the same experience they did last time. People revisit McDonald's because it's easy and familiar and cheap and momentarily satisfying, but I'm pretty sure they'd change it immediately if they got Micheling awarded fine dining with the same price.

The difference is one of us is going to eat happily, the other might see a side dish ( the combat ) they don't like and throw the whole three coarse meal out the window.

If there's a nugget of shit in every plate, even if just a small tiny one and separated from the other ingredients to the side of the plate, it's a different dish entirely than what would've been without the nugget.

This discussion of our ideas for implementing Character control for a third-person-shooter in their game is entirely academic.
So be academic with a positive attitude.

Yes. Of course. I like to think that even if my views seem a bit dire at times, I'm still on the positive side in that I have the energy to bother with these discussions and suggestions at all, and still have a slither of faith in this thing being something more than what one might think on the outset. One would think that it's all pointless and it would be easier to just move along because "it's going to be a shooter of some more or less traditional kind anyway."

dice rolls in vidogames with quick-save and quick-load just means a lot of time spent on the loading screen for most people.

That's the players own problem. It's like sleeping on the floor beside the bed and complaining its hard and your back hurts.

And there are ways to make savescumming less appealing (e.g. when it's made even more of a chore than it already is as an idea).

 

[Rawls]

Compare that to a system where damage is pretty much the same throughout the game, and you are allowed to and even likely to fail, where success is not guaranteed and increasing your odds might require a bit of concentration and patience. But when you do hit it, it delievers huge payoff immediately. Not simply papercutting the enemies to death, but possibly killing them there if the bullet hits the right spot.

This is what I've been advocating exactly.

Make lacking skills have combat be more difficult. Add sway to aim, additional time to draw weapon, more recoil for weapons when shots are fired if the person has no skill with fire arms. Have guns jam sometimes, and are cleared more quickly by someone who knows how to use a firearm. Make it so there is a % chance parry is unsuccessful with melee weapons in melee combat if you don't have any skill in melee combat. There are third person combat games out there that do some or all of this to varying degrees of success. The Last of Us had skills effect sway of aim (and it was a pain to shoot until you took the skills). The Witcher 3 had parry and dodge (though I think you ought to be able to fail at it when you're not an expert swordsman). MGSV had solid stealth mechanics and it would be fairly easy to make the player easier or harder to spot for NPCs with certain skills. Mass Effect 3 had solid TPS combat mixed with companions. Lots of games have skills effect draw time, recoil and the like. You can have both the sense of variety in combat based on character skill and player control.

However, a total novice can shoot an expert in the head and kill him. A farmer can stab a witcher in the chest with a pitchfork. It's just much harder without the appropriate skills. Make enemies and the player hit hard but harder to hit (especially by unskilled characters). If you shoot a guy in the head without armor, he's 95% of the time going to be dead. If someone shoots you in the head without armor, you're gonna be dead 95% of the time. Totally agree NPCs and the PC ought not be bullet sponges (perhaps with Mechs and armored enemies being the exception). If the player fears charging in knowing it means certain death, they will have to seek creative ways to address combat situations. If the AI has a loaded gun, it's not going to charge you. It's going to take cover and shoot or possibly flank under cover. CP2077 ought to be a dangerous world. The PC and NPCs should know this and act accordingly. Only on easiest difficulty should it be different.

The bottom line is lack of skill can effect the gameplay and the player can still be in control. They are not mutually exclusive. Balancing TPS, stealth, companions/classes, combat skill mechanic dependent gameplay, and player control has never been done like that in one game to my knowledge. Taking inspiration from several locations and balancing them into a cohesive vision would be very a significant accomplishment. Just because the components have been done before in other games, does not mean a finished product like this would not feel fresh and fun. Mix in the fact that hopefully combat will be only a portion of the overall game (persuasion, stealth & hacking hopefully being involved as well). There is room for TPS combat where RPG skill & attribute components effect how challenging the combat is for the player.

 

[NukeTheMoon]

I thought I did that. What do want me to define, exactly?

Define how you both control player movement, and use the mouse to target enemies, and use a sub-menu to select body parts to target, in TPS, all in full motion at the same time, just for starters.
My example with VATS was the most realistic thing that came to mind. Target to shoot. Use sub-menu. Then move. But all three at the same time? Fustercluck comes to mind.

It says exactly what it says.

Saying we need more traditional RPGs because "I think there are to many shooters these days and I don't like em" isn't an argument, it's an opinion.

And I'm opposed to that. Skill for damage design, that is. Most of todays pseudo RPG's do it and most often it only leads to experience that is irrelecant and monotone. You are constantly being succesful there, every time you shoot and hit you are pumping up the rewards from the enemy (in for of HP), little by little. It always works the same, there's no level of surprise or bigger and smaller successes, just the monotone grind that is same for all character levels aside from the time it takes. Combat at its core is unchanged from the start to the end of the game. Unless you really suck balls at pointing a cursors (in which case you are screwed regardless of the character skill).
Unsirprising, grindy, monotone. Unfun.
Compare that to a system where damage is pretty much the same throughout the game, and you are allowed to and even likely to fail, where success is not guaranteed and increasing your odds might require a bit of concentration and patience. But when you do hit it, it delievers huge payoff immediately. Not simply papercutting the enemies to death, but possibly killing them there if the bullet hits the right spot.
I do believe that if you reward the hit properly, if you give it enough puch even if it doesn't outright kill the target, the frustration of missing consecutive shots (or swings) goes away or at least is mitigated greatly.

Honestly shooting at something and not hitting it 5 times then hitting it once and killing it is something that sortof works in Isometric because conceptually what is visually happening is so vague but in a shooter perceptive forget about it.

Dues Ex sort of did that at low skill level and that system just pissed people off.

Honestly what I think you really want is a turn-based Isometric RPG of some kind. Maybe the turns and movement show in over-the-shoulder camera but really I don't think you want it to be any kind of shooter at all.

And I keep hoping they have had the wisdom to think about it and reiterate it to not simply give the same experience they did last time. People revisit McDonald's because it's easy and familiar and cheap and momentarily satisfying, but I'm pretty sure they'd change it immediately if they got Micheling awarded fine dining with the same price.

Whenever I hear the phrase
"I hope they have the wisdom"
I know what they're saying is
"I hope the do what I think they should do, because I know they should do better than they do, because I am so smart"

If there's a nugget of shit in every plate,.... I like to think that ... I'm still on the positive side.... in that I have the energy to bother with these discussions and.....still have a slither of faith in this thing being something more than what one might think on the outset......

Absolutely dripping with positivism.

That's the players own problem. It's like sleeping on the floor beside the bed and complaining its hard and your back hurts.
And there are ways to make savescumming less appealing (e.g. when it's made even more of a chore than it already is as an idea)

If savecrumming is part of the game then there's something wrong with that part of the game.

If someone invests points into Charisma or something, then that should open doors that are other wise closed.

 

[0248991]

Compare that to a system where damage is pretty much the same throughout the game, and you are allowed to and even likely to fail, where success is not guaranteed and increasing your odds might require a bit of concentration and patience. But when you do hit it, it delievers huge payoff immediately. Not simply papercutting the enemies to death, but possibly killing them there if the bullet hits the right spot.

However, a total novice can shoot an expert in the head and kill him. A farmer can stab a witcher in the chest with a pitchfork. It's just much harder without the appropriate skills. Make enemies and the player hit hard but harder to hit (especially by unskilled characters). If you shoot a guy in the head without armor, he's 95% of the time going to be dead. If someone shoots you in the head without armor, you're gonna be dead 95% of the time. Totally agree NPCs and the PC ought not be bullet sponges (perhaps with Mechs and armored enemies being the exception). If the player fears charging in knowing it means certain death, they will have to seek creative ways to address combat situations. If the AI has a loaded gun, it's not going to charge you. It's going to take cover and shoot or possibly flank under cover. CP2077 ought to be a dangerous world.

Hi,
I understand that you want some non hack and slash combat and I quite agree with that, but it should be more fluent than just making it "turn" based - cover, reload, look, shoot; and if you would get hit to vital spot, you would instantly die.
It would, at least for me, be boring, to attack in about each 4th "turn", maybe even more, depending on NPC AI, carefully cover, evaluate situation,.... - brain all time on 100%. Sometimes I don't have patience to follow strict fight "scenario" and want to just unload.
Also, if you would die at the end of long "strategic" fight, you would probably need to repeat it all over.
Making it really hardcore "strategic" - when you spend 90% of time "somewhere in inventory" - especially if it would require to pause game -
would be real pain, wouldn't it ?
(Maybe this could be solved by having very small inventory and all bound to hot keys. It would also add realism that you can't "carry it all" as in witcher).

 

[Rawls]

I understand that you want some non hack and slash combat and I quite agree with that, but it should be more fluent than just making it "turn" based - cover, reload, look, shoot; and if you would get hit to vital spot, you would instantly die.

Just to be clear, I am not advocating turn based combat at all. What I want could most accurately be described as skills dependent third person action combat with companions. Think ME3 (class/skill influenced companion TPS), TW3 (melee combat with skill dependent parry & dodge), TLoU (skill dependent aim, enemies that take cover. switch from ranged to melee combat fairly fluidly), Horizon Zero Dawn (enemy weak spots, enemies and PC hit hard) and MGSV (stealth ... but somewhat more skill dependant) mixed together and you'll have something like what I'm contemplating. None of those are turn based.

 

[kofeiiniturpa]

Define how you both control player movement, and use the mouse to target enemies, and use a sub-menu to select body parts to target, in TPS, all in full motion at the same time, just for starters.

- You move the character with WASD, mouse moves the cursor. All as usual.
- You take the cursor to the enemy and press and hold RMB (as if taking aim through the sights), and the cursor locks on to the target. Release RMB and you release the cursor.
- No submenu here (aside possibly for a tactical pause feature or the hinted "Tactical mode"). Default aim would be on torso (though I don't see why it couldn't be toggled on some preferences). Move mouse upwards and the cursor jumps to the enemys head and the time-counter and hit-chances reset to reflect what the difficulty to hit the head is. Move downwards to get back to the torso. Move it left and right for arms and bottomleft and -right for legs. LMB to shoot (each shot resets the aim, and long burst fire could even penalize so much that you can't for a while target anything but the guy as a whole).
- Additionally, you could use mousewheel to cycle through bodyparts. Ad Q and E to quick-cycle through possible targets (items included).
- All the while still holding RMB (the cursor is locked to the target so you don't need mouse for anything else before you shoot) and maneuvering the character as you would in any game.

Saying we need more traditional RPGs because "I think there are to many shooters these days and I don't like em" isn't an argument, it's an opinion.

Saying there's too many shooters is just saying there's too many shooters. I've tried to explaing that [I think] we need more games that break the common mold and take inspiration from the traditional RPG mechanics. What I suggest up there and in general is not a traditional RPG (because CP2077 isn't likely to be one) in the same sense as games that might inspire it, it's a modern game that tries to mix traditional RPG mechanics and sensibilities within modern framework and ideals.

Whenever I hear the phrase "I hope they have the wisdom" I know what they're saying is "I hope the do what I think they should do, because I know they should do better than they do, because I am so smart"

Ah,,, Grappling on to some wording shenanigans and discounting what was actually said.

I am not saying "Do exactly as I tell", I'm not disillusoned to think I have leverage.

I am pushing my "hopes" harder because so few others are. And I am being specific with my examples not to say "I know better", but to be clear with what point I am trying to drive at (and if it would so happen that it got through the way I explained, that would be nice... yeah; but I don''t expect it, obviously), because the point is more than just "virtual dicerolls, please". It's also about explaining the sought out experience in more detail because that doesn't come through with "I'd love me some % checks". This is obvious from how people, even the older ones, treat the idea of "RPG traditionalism".... i.e. "Oh you just want to copy/paste shit from 20 years ago, baaw! It's 2017, pops." No fucking way I am. Not here at least.

Absolutely dripping with positivism.

Ok, you got me there. I'm not a very positive person.

But I am productive in my criticism, and I'd like to think creative too in a way that I'm usually trying to find solutions to problems I have beyond "Please no shit feature X in this game!"

If savecrumming is part of the game then there's something wrong with that part of the game.

It's only part of the player mind. Get rid of it and understand that you don't need "everything" and you're fine. Plus, you can design failure as part of the game so that even if you did just "fail" it counts for something, and needs not to be reversed.

If someone invests points into Charisma or something, then that should open doors that are other wise closed.

Absolutely.

But there might also be jealous people, who do not appreciate an overly charismatic personality. Thus some doors might also close.
Some people might also be unsure about what they want.. that means they might say no no matter how convincing you think you are.

Edit ------

This is what I've been advocating exactly.

The premise is very similiar. Delivery seems somewhat different, though, as your examples include games like Witcher 3 and Mass Effect 3, which mine wouldn't as I view those games to not have strong enough character systems (in any regard).

I'd consider something like Morrowind and Witcher 1 and Deus Ex brought to this day, or something thereabouts.

 

[Suhiira]

And I'm opposed to that. Skill for damage design, that is. Most of todays pseudo RPG's do it and most often it only leads to experience that is irrelecant and monotone. You are constantly being succesful there, every time you shoot and hit you are pumping up the rewards from the enemy (in for of HP), little by little. It always works the same, there's no level of surprise or bigger and smaller successes, just the monotone grind that is same for all character levels aside from the time it takes. Combat at its core is unchanged from the start to the end of the game. Unless you really suck balls at pointing a cursors (in which case you are screwed regardless of the character skill).

Unsirprising, grindy, monotone. Unfun.

Compare that to a system where damage is pretty much the same throughout the game, and you are allowed to and even likely to fail, where success is not guaranteed and increasing your odds might require a bit of concentration and patience. But when you do hit it, it delievers huge payoff immediately. Not simply papercutting the enemies to death, but possibly killing them there if the bullet hits the right spot.

I do believe that if you reward the hit properly, if you give it enough puch even if it doesn't outright kill the target, the frustration of missing consecutive shots (or swings) goes away or at least is mitigated greatly.

The nuFallouts (at least 3 and NV) went a bit of both ways and people complained about missing. Of course they did when hitting the target did nothing but a scratch, there's an unrewarding success.

Your chance to actually hit may be better or worse depending on your skills with weapons but that in no way effects the amount of damage a hit does.
Totally absurd concept.

People don't like missing ... duh ... neither do professional soldiers, but it happens, a lot, unless you're talking elite special forces types at very short ranges (i.e. hostage rescue stuff).

One of the main differences between "Western" and "Arab" combat shooting styles is evident in most YouTube videos. For the most part the "West" aims toward a specific target (or target area) and fires, the "Arabs" point in a general direction and spray. Watch footage of elite special forces training for hostage rescue and you see they actually aim, often at specific body sections, before they fire.
Range has only a limited effect on your chance to hit a target, skill (and by extension shooting style) that's what makes the difference. This is why (relatively unskilled) police miss at 3m and highly skilled special forces don't.

So yes, I'm totally opposed to character skill (or weapon "upgrades") in any way effecting the amount of damage weapons do in CP2077. It's STRICTLY and ABSOLUTELY a "game" concept.

Sometimes I don't have patience to follow strict fight "scenario" and want to just unload.
Also, if you would die at the end of long "strategic" fight, you would probably need to repeat it all over.

And, no personal insult intended, this is exactly the difference between a "skilled" and "unskilled" shooter.
One wants to shoot, the other waits to shoot (be it a fraction of a second or several seconds).

Yep, being the last person to die in a firefight sux. Fortunately in a game we do have the option to reload, no so real life.

- You move the character with WASD, mouse moves the cursor. All as usual.
- You take the cursor to the enemy and press and hold RMB (as if taking aim through the sights), and the cursor locks on to the target. Release RMB and you release the cursor.
- No submenu here (aside possibly for a tactical pause feature or the hinted "Tactical mode"). Default aim would be on torso (though I don't see why it couldn't be toggled on some preferences). Move mouse upwards and the cursor jumps to the enemys head and the time-counter and hit-chances reset to reflect what the difficulty to hit the head is. Move downwards to get back to the torso. Move it left and right for arms and bottomleft and -right for legs. LMB to shoot (each shot resets the aim, and long burst fire could even penalize so much that you can't for a while target anything but the guy as a whole).
- Additionally, you could use mousewheel to cycle through bodyparts. Ad Q and E to quick-cycle through possible targets (items included).
- All the while still holding RMB (the cursor is locked to the target so you don't need mouse for anything else before you shoot) and maneuvering the character as you would in any game.

And the nice thing is your player is selecting where they move to and what they aim at yet the characters skills are determining the chance to actually hit. None of the circle strafing, pop-a-mole, and other nonsense you commonly see in FPS games.
I like it.

I am pushing my "hopes" harder because so few others are. And I am being specific with my examples not to say "I know better", but to be clear with what point I am trying to drive at (and if it would so happen that it got through the way I explained, that would be nice... yeah; but I don''t expect it, obviously), because the point is more than just "virtual dicerolls, please". It's also about explaining the sought out experience in more detail because that doesn't come through with "I'd love me some % checks" ... <clip>

Exactly.
Useful potential ways to actually implement a system not vague, essentially useless, generalizations.

 

[kofeiiniturpa]

Your chance to actually hit may be better or worse depending on your skills with weapons but that in no way effects the amount of damage a hit does. Totally absurd concept.

...

Yeah, I agree. On the principle. I'm not completely and utterly opposed to a little bit of range in the given damage (not skill affected) because it means your hit might not always be straight up above the right eye blowing a quarter of the head off. It might be a scratch to the cheek or a knick to the earlobe. But even that is somewhat problematic when - with closeup camera in thrid or first person - you can witness the impact. Seeing a red splash on the chracters nose or eye makes it hard to interpret as a graze.

 

[Suhiira]

Yeah, I agree. On the principle. I'm not completely and utterly opposed to a little bit of range in the given damage (not skill affected) because it means your hit might not always be straight up above the right eye blowing a quarter of the head off. It might be a scratch to the cheek or a knick to the earlobe. But even that is somewhat problematic when - with closeup camera in thrid or first person - you can witness the impact. Seeing a red splash on the chracters nose or eye makes it hard to interpret as a graze.

This could be easily handled by game mechanics.
Say 25% (or whatever) of "hits" are "grazes" and do half (or less) damage.
No reason to assume because a player is aiming right between the eyes (unless they're using a sniper weapon AND skilled in it's use) that's where a bullet will actually impact. They did hit, just not solidly.
But to have every shot do some set amount of damage, be it modified by level, skill, weapon type (assuming the same caliber) just because developers want players to feel rewarded by some level of success rather then annoyed because they missed has zero place in "realistic" combat simulations. These sorts of (commonly used) "game" mechanics are some of the (many) things that personally annoy me about (most) FPS games.

 

[Lisbeth_Salander]

Fuck. I really enjoy when you guys do Brainstorming.