You mean wasn't hit in the head, kicked to the ground, had an unauthorized access to datalink and arm twisted while being aimed at by guns?
I am actually with Kakita here. I am not one to advocate impossibly many options to a given scene, but the way the gorilla gets the drop on V REALLY grinds my gears. Maybe this is early in the game and V is portrayed as something of a noob, or maybe a different kind of character build than the combat cyborg with razor reflexes I am imagining.
If taking a handgun hit on your head and being thrown to the ground while V is magically unable to resist isn't being bullied then I don't have the same definition of that word as you.
Ah -- nvm -- semantic disagreement. My use of "bullying" means that the victim is somehow subjected in the end (indicating V was forced to do something she didn't want to). I get what you mean.
Still disagree, though.
We can't control what other people do. We can only control our response. (I'll come back to this again below.) And, V
could have resisted. The option appeared more than once. How do we know that doing so necessarily meant combat? How do we know that some of that Facedown / COOL stuff would
not play into that option?
This is a major problem with letting people view a work-in-progress. The audience can very easily misconstrue what they are shown as somehow being comprehensive or final. Speculations and assumptions (based on the tiny taste the audience was given) begin take precedence over the reality of the entire project (which the audience was NOT shown). This is why many developers choose to remain buttoned up until they have something more finalized to show.
Actually that would only be the result of a facedown test. A Succeding facedown test (a failed one would end up changing nothing actually). And Facedown test is iconic to C2020.
Other option I gave would most likely imply violence, such as "-Crush the arm which tries to grab you." like this:
You think that's avoiding violence?
I think you kinda look at social as being all nice to everyone. That's not the case. That's not what Facedown is.
I certainly don't view social as being divided between "Rambo" and "Care Bears". In fact, if anything, I need to try to cut back on the sheer spectrum of considerations I normally take into account.
And here we come back to our actions vs. other's actions...and the extremely important, parallel concern of evolving a
narrative arc. I can't stress the importance of this consideration enough. The arc up to this point in the demo is as follows:
1.) We know that Stout's personality is aggressive and (as the commentary specifically indicates to help set the stage) "high-strung".
2.) We know that Stout has little respect for V, as Stout directly scoffs at her and
tries to bully her into making a mistake on the phone with:
"Ugh...amateur hour..." It's made blatantly obvious to the audience that Stout is an aggressive and vicious character who's also not the sharpest tool in the shed (as evidenced by her petty attempts to appear intimidating and superior).
3.) We know that something must have happened to make Stout so stressed and furious, and she doesn't seem interested in "talking it out" or "being reasonable". She's clearly the type of person that's going to take the shortest distance between two points.
4.) We know that
both V and Jackie don't like the look or feel of the situation when they scope out the meeting place.
5.) We know that V
expects things to get rough, as she specifically tells Jackie not to start unless she does. Then she
walks straight in.
She does it on purpose. V
knows she's going to be tackled. Is it a risk? Hell yes. The
narrative could not be broadcasting V's expectations or intent any more clearly. And the situation pans out exactly as V expects it to. V is in control of that situation, not the corpos...as long as the player handles it smartly. (Being a strong solo with a high melee ability probably means disarming the guard and reversing the gun, Jackie firing a warning shot, and turning the whole situation into the "facedown" you reference. [Just like we see later on when V and Jackie wind up drawing on the gangsters...before everyone holsters the guns and gets on with business...now that the pleasentires are concluded and they're satisfied that they all have the same sized tube-sock in their pants...])
Most importantly -- it follows the established
narrative arc to deliver the scene that was clearly established through the dramatic action up to that point.
Now...
Not
liking the way the scene was played is perfectly fine, but that doesn't invalidate the fact that a large array of RPG options are more than evident.
You say that like if nothing can changes Stout's mind.
That's what social actions are for.
Remember: The Ironmaster, a feared boosterganger known throughout Night City, also wanted to bully "that guy". But "That guy" was so self-posessed that it gaves him a feel of danger. In the end The Ironmaster changed his plans, shifted his eyes away and backed down with a grunt.
That was facedown. That's one of the major use of COOL (and reputation).
Sure. I agree that it could have been used. Maybe that's exactly how it
is being used. The reality is: we don't know. We were shown only
one, possible pathway through that (relatively tiny) encounter. We have no idea how the other options would have played out. If we're going to speculate, then we have to take the evidence that we are provided. To simply disregard that evidence and/or
assume that the results would be unsatisfactory is an invalid argumentative stance. (That's speculation based on information we
don't have, not inference based on information we
do have. [By which I mean the various dialogue options we
do see, not their respective scenes we
don't see.])
And, I'll also say that having every tense encounter begin with a character trying to front up, all tuff-and-stuff...then end with them clearing their throat and backing down...will get old really fast. Sometimes, you just meet people with rocks for brains. Sometimes, you have to deal with people that start swinging instead of asking questions. (That doesn't mean you can't avoid an outright combat encounter, it simply means some NPCs will hit first and think later.) That's life.
It's also variety. And that's super important if you're trying to drive dramatic action along a
narrative arc. (Once again, whether or not I
like this will boil down to preference. If I just don't care for it, then that's that.)
That's not uncommon for a corpo to do that.
That doesn't mean they are bound to use violence, just that they are prepared to use violence and also making a display of power to avoid problems.
And it's not uncommon for corpos to be outright hostile, simply put a few rounds in people, and take what they want.
Taking this whole discussion into consideration, I think most people's responses are based on the fact that the demo showed only very basic, establishing scenes of the game's story (for obvious reasons), and took a path that was pretty combat-focused. I'm also very much under the impression that the "fight" in the factory is both specifically built to showcase combat options and does not reflect how that sequence would actually have gone. (I think it was intentionally drawn out to exhibit all the bits of combat they wanted to share.) It's also shows only one pathway through each of the scenes. All of this is likely because that's what was ready for this WiP demo of a very early build of the game in which everything was subject to change. Can't place too much weight on it. It was only a taste of some of the ingredients. Not the full pizza ready to be served.
_______________
I will say, however, that I would have handled the demo differently. (Though, caveat: I have no idea if this would have been possible with the build that was available at the time.) Here's the way I'm thinking:
CDPR is claiming that the game will be an RPG
first with shooter elements. I would have avoided showing so much shooting. Ideally, I would have shown a shorter bit of the game, but highlighted 3 pathways through it, showcasing the RPG aspects and how differently the scenes would play out. At the very least, I would have shown the deal for the bot going bad, highlighting some combat stuff (not so much, though), then gone back and exhibited a playthrough of buying the bot that avoided all combat. Something solid to show just how visceral the RPG aspects would be.
Simply because that wasn't done for the demo doesn't mean it won't be there. The evidence exists in piles that it will be there. The options for the dialogue were there. The Directive Scene System is not an easy bit of technology to develop or incorporate if CDPR intends for all choices to lead to the same outcomes. I think the game will wind up surprising a lot of people that are convinced it won't achieve its goals.
