I'd like to know how some of the minigame-haters here would propose to convey that certain things are skill-based to those that don't have the skill in a manner that is comparable in interactivity. I like having vital tasks be more than, "I rolled a 7; does that succeed?". I thought that that sort of thing was what made PC/console RPGs different from P&P ones. If I wanted RNG to be the be-all-end-all of skill resolution, dice are cheaper than software and books are cheaper than hardware, so why would I ever do RPG stuff on computers?
Of course, the minigame has to have a thematic and logical connection to the task at hand. I think the lockpicking system in Skyrim and Fallout 4 was good, aside from the fragility of lockpicks/bobbypins. If you disagree then what do you propose? Get rid of lockpicking and force a search for the key? Reduce the entire game to a pure-shooter and leave all the doors unlocked? Most of the other minigames from Skyrim were not nearly so great though; I could've done without those damn "Eagle, snake, bear" puzzle-locks.
Hacking is a bit of a problem though since a lot of folks have little/no relevant knowledge. Even those of us who build our own PCs are rarely coders. Consider that many hacks are either code-based (boring and uncinematic) or social engineering (hacking the wetware instead of the software), it's no wonder that most game devs make it a little more Hollywood.
Those are the folks that would be looking for weakspots in the walls or using social skills (or a gun to the head) to get others to grant them access. Hell, I'd be more likely to attack the hardware than the software myself. But doesn't knowing your weaknesses and finding a way to accomplish tasks anyways despite certain limitations require a certain amount of logic?
I have argued against minigames, though I do agree that the Bethesda lockpicking is one of the better ones. I don't really care for a heavy reliance on RNG either for the same reason that I am not a huge fan of minigame based solutions, it allows for situations where the skills of a character are ignored, like the equivalent of a PhD in cyber security who can't crack a bottom tier improvised firewall because of a bad roll or obtuse minigame, or the inverse a task that should be nearly impossible based on the character's skills, but is easily achievable because the player is really good at the minigame.
I will admit, I don't have any ways that I know would work or would provide a more satisfying experience, because I've never done professional game design, I do not know the pitfalls or what has previously been attempted in pre-production endeavors. I am not against saying some tasks requiring skill level X to attempt, and if they have that skill then they succeed. I would also be fine with requiring level 1 to attempt, 1-3 require minigame or RNG (though in the debate between minigame/rng I'd favor minigame), and 4+ results in auto-success.
Most RPG's are happy to give you attacks that you can perform simply because you have the skills and equipment and the effectiveness of those actions are solely a result of the character's qualities, but then when it comes to a handful of activities like hacking suddenly the character's traits are less relevant than the player's traits. This then creates scenarios where you can be a successful hacker who barely devotes any resources to hacking or putting all of the character points into it but still being ineffective, it undermines the character based role playing mechanics. Based on the demo it looks like CDPR is going with the skill based this is or is not possible check which works for me.
Oddly enough, while I think Bethesda's lock picking minigame is much more enjoyable than the door lock puzzles, I don't have a problem with the random puzzles because they aren't a reflection of lock-picking or some other action represented in the character sheet.
