No it isn't.
You are literally the first person I've talked to over the years about the series that refers to it as action games.
I'll wait to play it first to see if it has that kind reactivity and if it lets me think outside the box.
You are literally the first person I've talked to over the years about the series that refers to it as action games.
It is. It's very much about physical challenges - essence of action games. You need to aim, time things, navigate complex environments, perform reaction/coordination-based actions. If you hear it for the first time, doesn't mean it's not true.
Here's a quote from wiki:
Fits Thief perfectly. And Deus Ex. And System Shock.
...and like 95% of games. Your definition of action is all encompassing. Nobody considers Thief an action game as far as genre definitions go. Not the fans, not people that reviewed it, not the developers.
If you're going to wikipedia why not go the actual page for the Thief series and see what it's classified as.
Thief (series) - Wikipedia
The relevant 2 uses of the word action only happen in the following:
Yes, the game gives you the option of fighting your way through but it's not a very well developped feature compared to all the stealth elements like the how shadows influence your visibility or how its brilliant sound design plays an active role in how you play the game.
By comparison the word stealth is used 10 times including in bit that mentions what genre the Thief games pertain to.
...unless we're talking about Thief from 2014...which we will not because that game...was an abomination.
Thief: Deadly Shadows is a stealth game. Thief 2: The Metal Age is a stealth game. Thief: Gold is a stealth game. the 'action' in them is damn near a punishment to remind you go back to being stealthy.
Thief: Deadly Shadows is a stealth game. Thief 2: The Metal Age is a stealth game. Thief: Gold is a stealth game. the 'action' in them is damn near a punishment to remind you go back to being stealthy.
Heh, yeah. Thief is not really and action game. You have to sometimes work fast to avoid the guards, but "action game"... no, not really. That suggest an underlying intention behind the design.
So yeah, hacking.
If it was going to be a simple check, I'd very much prefer it to be RNG based check.
Otherwise, if it had a minigame... I would love to see a bit more complexity than what these things usually have; with an optional "auto attempt" button for (RNG based) check that takes a few seconds.
Simplified minigames like what Bethesda did with Fallout... The simplicity, overt ease of it all and lack of variety is what makes the repeated attempts tedious. If it's some sort of halfwit plumbing minigame like in Bioshock... well, the same thing, really. If it is long drawn out combat-mimicing sequence like in Shadowrun... Yeah, it gets annoying in the long run.
So, keywords. Variety (maybe you can use several skills and perks for different checks inside the minigame), maybe the interfaces change from time to time. Stuff like that. And decent complexity, that it is not there just as an easy timely obstruction, but as a complementation of the core gameplay.
And so on and so forth... What ever "could've been" two or so years ago.
If it was going to be a simple check, I'd very much prefer it to be RNG based check.
Otherwise, if it had a minigame... I would love to see a bit more complexity than what these things usually have; with an optional "auto attempt" button for (RNG based) check that takes a few seconds.
Simplified minigames like what Bethesda did with Fallout... The simplicity, overt ease of it all and lack of variety is what makes the repeated attempts tedious. If it's some sort of halfwit plumbing minigame like in Bioshock... well, the same thing, really. If it is long drawn out combat-mimicing sequence like in Shadowrun... Yeah, it gets annoying in the long run.
So, keywords. Variety (maybe you can use several skills and perks for different checks inside the minigame), maybe the interfaces change from time to time. Stuff like that. And decent complexity, that it is not there just as an easy timely obstruction, but as a complementation of the core gameplay.
And so on and so forth... What ever "could've been" two or so years ago.
Last edited:
would the chances of success of the RNG based check improve with every use? because that's the type of mechanic i want to see more of in games. it resembles a dice roll more accurately in my head. like go ahead, attempt the skill but chances are you'll fail; keep failing until you don't, or until it becomes less likely you fail.
the current Breach mechanic is skippable entirely though. you're preferring the minigame be absolutely necessary (but auto-completed based on skill)?
the current Breach mechanic is skippable entirely though. you're preferring the minigame be absolutely necessary (but auto-completed based on skill)?
CP77 is an action game at it's core. Probably even more a shooter than other immersive sims out there (yes, I think CP77 is more of an immersive sim, than an RPG). It can't afford endless complex mini-games that interrupt the process. It has to be something that integrates well flow-wise.
Of course. Logically you learn from your mistakes. Not as much as you successes, but nevertheless.
Post automatically merged:
"Auto attempt" to bypass minigame.
But in any case. It can certainly afford much more than non-stop action and shooting. And it should too. No... not just should, it needs to.
EDIT - and for the record. I don't like minigames. But I take a well done minigame anytime over a flat and boring YES/NO threshold check.
Last edited:
What's the point of a mini-game if you can auto it?
It doesn't need to do anything. Every game has it's own rhythm. It needs to consider all elements and how they combine together. I don't oppose mini-games or any mechanic for that matter out of context. I simply don't think that if they removed some mechanic, it's necessary dumbing down. And if every last freaking action doesn't have a deep mechanic behind it, it means it tries to cater to masses who just want to click heads.
It's your choice whether to tackle it or not.
Perhaps there's a finite resource in play and you think you can handle it better yourself than giving RNG the reigns. Perhaps you are really lousy with the minigame and simply have to "auto" it. Perhaps you really are pissed off about it and can't bother.
What ever the reason.
Post automatically merged:
If it is not replaced with anything of similiar potent, it usually is (dumbing down).
Bad mechanics are bad mechanics, though. And that's different. But even there... Alternative means exist without the need to go simple.
what are your hangups with the Breach protocol mechanically? we know how it works (i'm not sure as of yet if there's a time gate on it). is it just its singularity and lack of variety?
Who? Me?
I expected the breach protocol to be exactly the sort of thing that gets repeated ad nauseam without surprises (since flat checks). Kinda like the hacking minigames on DXHR. If that was the case, I'd much rather roll a dice a couple of times and let the character do his job (and either succeed of fail at it).
It might be waste of limited development resources. I get the desire of giving a player a choice at every step. It's well-intended. But building complex systems with variety for trivial stuff and then adding optional element on top of it - I bet majority of people will just save themselves time.
Maybe similar potent is obstructive to gameplay. And this is why they removed it entirely.
Letting you colour your pubes and adjust the length and circumcision of your dong is wasted developement resources. Adjusting schedules to NPC's you can do nothing with is a waste of limited developement resources. Attempting to enrich the hands on gameplay is not; at least not by default.
Might well be.
The more we get to know, the poorer the game starts to sound in all but storytelling and graphics side.
Maybe singularity and lack of variety motivated devs to discard it. And they didn't have enough time to develop an alternative that would sustain player's interest throughout the game. Mean complex and evolving system. I doubt anyone wants another plumbing minigame from Bioshock or hecking like in Human Revolution.
Post automatically merged:
It's hardly waste. Given cinematic nature and detailed presentation of every aspect, you will probably see your dong and pubes in cutscenes. And minor tweaking is a truly minor addition to self-expression of a player.
Nope, it's not waste. It's part of environment. The world has to look somewhat believable. Even if it's not immediately interactive beyond probably some basic mayhem. It's something you can't ignore if you aim for the fidelity like what we saw in trailers.
Depending on what is being enriched and at what cost.
Last edited:
It's definitely a waste in favor of gratuitous teen arousement.
You aren't going to see porn in CP before the freaks and lover's lab and other perv modders get to it.
Yes it is (waste). You could handle random NPC's randomly, adjust appearances according to time of day. Nobody wouldn't make the difference without looking under the hood.
You don't need handcrafted schedules for random pedestrians since the player can't do anythign with those NPC's but kill them and look at them. There is simply no function to having them except for bragging rights, "hey, we did this, see".
You defend superficial trivialities, but frown upon actual gameplay. I don't really get the math there.
Not that you are wrong, you can be of what ever opinion. But to me gameplay should be the one area that does not get sacrificed.
It's not necessary in sex scenes. For example, at some point you wake up in a tub naked and you can see your own body. Or you remove clothes in your apartment and can see yourself fully naked in a mirror. I'm 100% sure it won't have X-rated stuff in it.
It depends on level of fidelity that they aim at. With this logic we can reach an idea that graphics is waste of resources. Which is obviously BS.
It's not trivial. You can't skip dead and hollow interiors and exteriors with random dolls that do nothing believable, especially when other visual elements like important NPCs and stuff like that are developed to great detail. It's question of consistency so the whole world feel natural and immersive.
In the end, I don't play games because they have this or that mechanic. Computer games isn't only about interactivity for me. Besides, gameplay elements can be sacrificed in favor of other gameplay elements. Which I believe is the case here. And not because they had to throw their people at development of coloring of pubic hair.
I dont understand what this means?
Also the whole game seems to be the same, with how you also level up with guns depending on how much you use them. So whatever it does mean it isnt "less and less" of it, and "more and more" of it. Its an overall design choice.