I'd play it that way; provided the design and content delivered. If the game looked and more or less played like the Wasteland 1 with all the content and reactivity they could add, I'd be fine with that.
- Status
Or perhaps as a text adventure?
Did you play Cypher? http://www.cabrerabrothers.com/
There is something to be said for nostalgia and retro, but if we stuck with what worked in the past, we'd still be using wax tablets and/or papyrus.
Cyberpunk is about the Bleeding Edge - I think it deserves the most tech we can throw at it. Plus a great story, of course.
Why not if that suited the intended gameplay and design. But no I haven't played text adventures in a while.
We are still using the wheel, though. Evolving doesn't always need to mean throwing the past in the trash. Imagine how much they could do with the gameplay, content and reactivity with the current computing power and memory capacities if they didn't have the limitations (or, to a far lesser extent than currently seems the norm) of graphical presentation and on screen action flow.
That's obviously a pipedream, and I'm not really suggesting such (for the futility of it), but it is a thought. I've always been for RPG's to leave things more abstract than accurate.
It is, but the fiction of the setting only needs to imply "bleeding edge"; what it deserves is respect for the source material regardless of how it is visually presented.
Sure.
We tend to remember the classics as being representative - turn based games were Torment and Fallout, Text-based were Hitchhiker's Guide and Zork.
But that wasn't the case. Quality will out, regardless of whether it's really-old-school or bleeding edge.
In this case, I'm not speaking of the visuals as much as presentation - the Cyberpunk 2020 I played would be well-served if you could jack into a virtual Night city - or even slap on an Oculus Rift. The writing and plot development weren't all that incredible, after all. I don't think gameplay content or reactivity would be much improved in text or isometric. Divinity Original Sin was fun, but it was no Witcher or Bloodlines.
Cypher is a good game. I played it, ( of course). If you like unrestricted-by-visuals-and-pizzazz Cyberpunk, Cypher is that.
We tend to remember the classics as being representative - turn based games were Torment and Fallout, Text-based were Hitchhiker's Guide and Zork.
But that wasn't the case. Quality will out, regardless of whether it's really-old-school or bleeding edge.
In this case, I'm not speaking of the visuals as much as presentation - the Cyberpunk 2020 I played would be well-served if you could jack into a virtual Night city - or even slap on an Oculus Rift. The writing and plot development weren't all that incredible, after all. I don't think gameplay content or reactivity would be much improved in text or isometric. Divinity Original Sin was fun, but it was no Witcher or Bloodlines.
Cypher is a good game. I played it, ( of course). If you like unrestricted-by-visuals-and-pizzazz Cyberpunk, Cypher is that.
FPP and TPP, be nice to have the choice. Walking around TPP would be a gorgeous thing to behold, the switch to FPP for combat.
Exactly.Sure.
What has happened, is that the wheel got improved (more versatile, more durable...), but it still functions exacxtly like a wheel always has, the shiny outlook is just vanity.
Nor did it ever try to be; and gladly so. D:OS has its own thing going, and was made with its own goals in mind and through its own restrictions and hardships.
But the point was to put out a thought about where the genre has the potential of going (if developer - whoever - willing) - not to compare what these and those games have done and what they were and weren't. I brought Wasteland as an example because presentationwise it is as rudimentary as it can get without turning into ASCII or plain text, and because as such it is easy to draw parallels from; and with such a frugal presentative design you have much, much more leeway and freedom to provide content as much and as complex as you like than with the current norms due to how much room, resources and effort the presentation alone takes.
I'm simply saying that I don't need flash and bang and future tech to enjoy my games, and more often than not, they tend to just get in the way because they seem to get the lions share of the developement focus at the expense of other aspects (that I tend to enjoy in RPG's).
Sure and I get that - but it also seems a little too pat. It's predicated on the idea that if less was put into flash and bang, more would be available for RPG structure and I'm not sure that follows.
Like the wheel comparison above, both items are wheels, but one is a much more advanced version - and to carry a high-tech car around at 300+ kph takes a lot more than vanity. The first wheel could not do the job at all - the second wheel does the job ably. I don't think isometric or text games or some version of pac-man-with-stats could do the job of portraying Cyberpunk 2020 as well as a suitably immersive environment such as 2077 will be.
A good RPG will be a good RPG regardless of perspective or viewpoint and that I prefer Witcher and Bloodlines as RPGs to almost every other RPG out there. That they allow me to role-play more than Wasteland did or Original Sin does. Perhaps the greater depth of Wasteland isn't only because resource costs, ( have we checked to see what W1 cost back in the day and compare it to other games of the era?), but because the genre and audience at the time were more ready for a great sprawling group RPG.
If you really don't need flash and bang at all, try Cypher. I think you'll miss some of that flash.
I'm not a computer or programming engineer, but to me it's a logical conclusion that if you don't fill the space with something (here: high grade assets and sounds and AI plus what ever comes with the territory, and their movement), there's room left to fill with something else. Or, in other terms, you can carry more cotton in a sack than you can bricks.
That's the evolution of the wheel. The newer version is capable of much more, but it is still a wheel. Think about the analogy this way: The wooden wheel is Wasteland as per 1988, the P ZERO is a rendition of the same idea circa 2014 (not Wasteland 2, but he same core design ideal of Wasteland), you can attach both to a sports car but you know which one can do better. It's not entirely about prespective, but the overall idea.
Of course Pac Man wouldn't suit the task. It is not a game of the sort at all. I wouldn't suggest WizBall would do the job. :lol:
Nethack could, though. With proper narrative cues to help the player interpret the presentation.
I used Wasteland as an example of a design base. As a game it is (and I say is because I played it the last time a week ago) very barebones, it couldn't even fit all the text it needed in the game disc so you needed a paragraph book to read the narrative of the game when prompted (and for a cool little detail, they had fake paragraphs in the book that could send the player to a wild goose chase if he cheated and read ahead). And I didn't mean to suggest otherwise. The thing I was going for is the basis of the game (whether looking exactly like it does or a bit more visually stimulating) is capable of delivering quite a lot of stuff (think about how much of a game would fit within 1 gigabyte if done like that). But it's all just theorizing... I don't believe anyone will ever make something like that.
I need to say, though, that I'm not a luddite, if a game looks flashy, requires a 2020 computer to run maxed out and is a fun experience, then that's the way it is. I've got no qualms about hat, it's good. Nor am I actively seeking to prove myself wrong either by taking on old games that are suggested to be cumbersome (which a lot of them are... but then, this hasn't been about what the games of yore were). But what I am saying is that you can have very modest trappings and a very high horsepower RPG inside -- if you are able to appreciate abstraction (not everyone is, understandably; and they don't need to be).
As an aside, the bickering about graphics in W3 side of these boards is something I consider absolutely absurd. It's almost to be interpreted as if the looks compensate for bad gameplay and that the game does not work if the presentation is even slightly off the expected mark. That's, in my opinion, a very assbackwards approach to an RPG where the flavor should be coming from elsewhere than the fur of a wolf and the crispiness of a tree bark mesh (or what ever it is called).
Last edited:
But like Cyberpunk a lot of people are very much "form over function" oriented. For them the graphics and gameplay smoothness is far more important then the story or actual mechanics. Most of the Asian MMOs are perfect examples of this. Cute, colorful, and play quite smoothly ... and very popular because of those qualities.
Some excellent points and I think we agree in most ways - except as much as I want to, I can't seem to finish Wasteland. I played it when it came out, of course, and didn't finish it then. I wouldn't want a Cyberpunk 202...oh, wait. Who am I kidding. Of course I would. I want a Cyberpunk Everything, let's be clear.
And I mentioned Bloodlines on purpose - I'd be fine with an updated version of that as Cyberpunk 2077. I like being banged and flashed, sure...but I don't need ultra-pretty. I'm really enjoying Shadows of Mordor - but because of the gameplay, not the graphics. Sometimes I'll climb a wall in the rain, ( which, by the way, is one of the most amazingthings ever, if you've ever climbed. Screw jumping and chopping..I can climb a wet wall and never lose my grip!), and admire the PURTY, but mostly I just appreciate the fluid animation and "gameplay".
Which is why, referencing Witcher 2, I'm fine with Witcher 2 open-world.
I wouldn't be so fine with Witcher 1 open-world - my brain would yell loudly about the pixels - but at a certain point, I stop caring about graphics or viewpoint. And I always care about story and gameplay.
Also why I wouldn't mind CP2077 in First Person - I don't really care -that- much about how I look.
I want Oculus Rift and/or my triple 30 inch flatscreen set up not because it's so coooool, ( although that too), but because I'd be closer to being -there-, you know? And the closer I get to there, the happier I am. So I want immersion more than great graphics. Stalker was very immersive at 4620x1600..I have no idea what I thought of the graphics at the time. Who remembers such things?
But I can tell you -exactly- what it felt like to be jacked by this guy in surround-o-vision. In the dark.
And I mentioned Bloodlines on purpose - I'd be fine with an updated version of that as Cyberpunk 2077. I like being banged and flashed, sure...but I don't need ultra-pretty. I'm really enjoying Shadows of Mordor - but because of the gameplay, not the graphics. Sometimes I'll climb a wall in the rain, ( which, by the way, is one of the most amazingthings ever, if you've ever climbed. Screw jumping and chopping..I can climb a wet wall and never lose my grip!), and admire the PURTY, but mostly I just appreciate the fluid animation and "gameplay".
Which is why, referencing Witcher 2, I'm fine with Witcher 2 open-world.
I wouldn't be so fine with Witcher 1 open-world - my brain would yell loudly about the pixels - but at a certain point, I stop caring about graphics or viewpoint. And I always care about story and gameplay.
Also why I wouldn't mind CP2077 in First Person - I don't really care -that- much about how I look.
I want Oculus Rift and/or my triple 30 inch flatscreen set up not because it's so coooool, ( although that too), but because I'd be closer to being -there-, you know? And the closer I get to there, the happier I am. So I want immersion more than great graphics. Stalker was very immersive at 4620x1600..I have no idea what I thought of the graphics at the time. Who remembers such things?
But I can tell you -exactly- what it felt like to be jacked by this guy in surround-o-vision. In the dark.
First off... all this talk about banging and flashing I am starting to wonder if you guys are talking about games or stripclubs or something. XD
Anywho... I do have to say though that the people who are making the graphics are rarely the same ones who are making the coding, or the ones who write story or what ever. And as such there is no real conflict between "graphics" vs "gameplay" vs "story" vs etc here.
Now if these different things where made by the same people... then yes... that would cause a problem... since time is limited, and one person can only do so much. But since this is rarely the case, the effect on the game it's self... asuming there is a good amount of people on all things... will be marginal between them.
Super hyper ultra good graphics or something, does not have to mean that the games mechanics and story was in any way comprimised... or any other order you could put those things in such a statement. Do we get games that got comprimised in certain areas due to thing "x"... yes... of course... but it does not have to mean that it always is the case. And also, I would only call it being comprimised if the people who made the game intended for certain parts of the game to be a certain level and did not manage due to other parts getting more time.
For example... I doubt that the story in any of the Call of Duty games where comprimised due to the graphical quality in those games... because they did not want to put more into the story then they did... which means the games story was never comprimised to begin with... it was just not an as importent aspect of the game as the mechanics and graphics where. Now if the devs of CoD had set out to make a game that looked stunning, played stunningly well, and had a story so good that it would blow all of the best rpg storywise out of the water... then yes... that would have ment they comprimised the story... "a bit"... XD But that was never their intention.
Anywho... I do have to say though that the people who are making the graphics are rarely the same ones who are making the coding, or the ones who write story or what ever. And as such there is no real conflict between "graphics" vs "gameplay" vs "story" vs etc here.
Now if these different things where made by the same people... then yes... that would cause a problem... since time is limited, and one person can only do so much. But since this is rarely the case, the effect on the game it's self... asuming there is a good amount of people on all things... will be marginal between them.
Super hyper ultra good graphics or something, does not have to mean that the games mechanics and story was in any way comprimised... or any other order you could put those things in such a statement. Do we get games that got comprimised in certain areas due to thing "x"... yes... of course... but it does not have to mean that it always is the case. And also, I would only call it being comprimised if the people who made the game intended for certain parts of the game to be a certain level and did not manage due to other parts getting more time.
For example... I doubt that the story in any of the Call of Duty games where comprimised due to the graphical quality in those games... because they did not want to put more into the story then they did... which means the games story was never comprimised to begin with... it was just not an as importent aspect of the game as the mechanics and graphics where. Now if the devs of CoD had set out to make a game that looked stunning, played stunningly well, and had a story so good that it would blow all of the best rpg storywise out of the water... then yes... that would have ment they comprimised the story... "a bit"... XD But that was never their intention.
As would I. I think Bloodlines had the right idea for navigating a big city; there hubs could've been a tad bigger, but then, there wasn't much "dead" areas to provide filler trekking through a scene. You could see the city span beyond the ares you were allowed to (supposed to) enter, so it gave the feeling of being somewhere large. Just imagine how it would look like if, in CP2077, there was a vista point at the roof of the tallest building, and you'd get a prerendered panoramic image of the Night City spanning to the horizon in all directions (and without your computers drawdistance muffling the view up); you could see some of the landmarks you could visit in other hubs, some lively flavor in for of....
That'd be cool.
The perspective doesn't really matter "all that" much; I prefer isometric (or even top down) because it usually plays on point'n click basis and gives me a wider view on the scene (I don't know, but I think it can also be easier on the computer because you can't see the horizon). I think GTA 1/2's perspective could work, Or Dreamweb's which is a pretty cyberpunky game to begin with.
But as I was about to say when I sidetracked; it is how the perspective is used that matters to me (I'm not very interested in first person shooters anymore, so obviously I push for less conventional solutions); I don't think VtMB or Deus Ex (the original, not Human Revolution) would be all that bad, but what I would really prefer (for FPP) would be a game like this with beefed up and spiced up everything from graphics to RPG systems to narration to reactivity and interactivity (it was already ahead of it's time back in the 90's -- RPG elements, storytelling, adventure gaming, driving simulation, combat, flight simulation... all in one package, and in first person -- it's a shame nobody has made a sequel, although it probably would end up as an FPS game so from that point of view, no harm done...).
That's not my choise of poison. I've watched videos about people playing with that sort of VR stuff and they look and sound like idiots (while playing; not as persons); it doesn't look or sound fun to me. Get a load of this guy and his peculiar contraption... :lol:
Flash:
...and bang.
That's true, but you need to think about how the content is presented (the confines of the engine, budget, voice acting, etc) in the game while you write down your storyline and adapt it to that limited environment. Of course you can do much that way already, but what I was talking about wasn't really just about the storyline, but the overall interactivity of the game.
In Witcher 3, you have these "huge" areas that are said to be several times Skyrim each (how are they filling all that wilderness without it feeling repetitive, cramped or empty, I have no idea) and the city of Novingrad (I think it was called that...) which is supposed to have hundreds of NPC's (was it that much?) going about their business with schedules and all. That's considered an achievement.. and I think it is (if they pull it off properly). But how many of those can you interact with in a way other than random comment at bumbing on; or how much can you interact with the physical city itself? I'm guess not too many by comparison to how many people there are (that's not a problem though). Now, with lesser focus on the visual presentative side... thinking of Wasteland again... you could, in theory, have 10 (or more) Novingrad's where each of the 500/city NPC's has an individual conversation tree, and who could draw their lines from several pools based on their disposition towards the player and the players current stats, or their current mood (based on several factors like what has been going on in the town lately, what's been going on in the dudes job or in his personal life, etc), or the time of day, or all of those. That sort of freedom gives potential for huge room of iterative and reactive storytelling with branches that'd dwarf anything currently on the market or coming - and it likely wouldn't need but a fraction of the discspace (text files aren't all that large, I think) that Witcher 3 will likely take (I'm guessing around 30GB give or take... but that's an uneducated guess). In theory, of course. I'm not an expert... Why would anyone do something like that, I don't know, but it's the possibilities that are there.
Last edited:
I did remember ranting about post-2003 games, but it's a tad cynical/retrograde to think that we should go back to the way it was in 1998. Or even the late 1980s.
While I do think the 2003-2013 period is a lost decade, things are definitely on the upswing. We're just starting to get out (slowly) of the uncanny valley with the advent of the oculus rift, there's huge opportunity.
It's just artistic direction. The story of the original FOs were just as stupid and silly as the ones in FO3. Most
OK, you can say FO3 was made by different people, but there were no excuse for FNV. Directing something like FO1 and 2, or Koshan conspiracy or whatever it was a much, much simpler task who relied primarly on writing. Truth is much of the industry just doesn't know how to wield the tools at their disposal properly.
Here's a secret:
It's not WHAT is in the story, it's HOW it's told.
But it took more then a 14 years for the silent film industry to find its charlie chaplin. I'd say give it time.
The fact that games are now multi-million dollar projects with huge teams doesn't help risk-averse business execs but the truth is they WILL move if there is major demand. The true problem is that there's so much conservatism amongst hardcore gamers and that's what's holding back the industry at this point.
In any case, the point is kind of moot. CDPR has already found its philosophy and its most likely going to continue on that path. At this point, it kinds of become complaining for the sake of complaining (or debating).
While I do think the 2003-2013 period is a lost decade, things are definitely on the upswing. We're just starting to get out (slowly) of the uncanny valley with the advent of the oculus rift, there's huge opportunity.
It's just artistic direction. The story of the original FOs were just as stupid and silly as the ones in FO3. Most
OK, you can say FO3 was made by different people, but there were no excuse for FNV. Directing something like FO1 and 2, or Koshan conspiracy or whatever it was a much, much simpler task who relied primarly on writing. Truth is much of the industry just doesn't know how to wield the tools at their disposal properly.
Here's a secret:
It's not WHAT is in the story, it's HOW it's told.
But it took more then a 14 years for the silent film industry to find its charlie chaplin. I'd say give it time.
The fact that games are now multi-million dollar projects with huge teams doesn't help risk-averse business execs but the truth is they WILL move if there is major demand. The true problem is that there's so much conservatism amongst hardcore gamers and that's what's holding back the industry at this point.
In any case, the point is kind of moot. CDPR has already found its philosophy and its most likely going to continue on that path. At this point, it kinds of become complaining for the sake of complaining (or debating).
Last edited:
Nobody's complaining, though. It's just a discussion that started from an "8-bit" joke.
And in any case, where would the fun of discussing matters of the game be if there were no "sore throats" (from any given point of view) and it was more or less "you-take-my-hand-I-take-your-hand" circle jerking; more so when there's so little we know and the proverbial walls to bang heads on are yet to be built?
And in any case, where would the fun of discussing matters of the game be if there were no "sore throats" (from any given point of view) and it was more or less "you-take-my-hand-I-take-your-hand" circle jerking; more so when there's so little we know and the proverbial walls to bang heads on are yet to be built?
Maybe so, but the fact remains that blaming technology for the poor state of gaming is like a writer blaming the computer for his grammatical mistakes.
I have thought a lot about all of those things... where the money goes, engines, graphics, story, etc... and they are things I was aware of and thought about as I wrote that post as well. But just due to how much I tend to write I decided to leave a mention of it out.
What I was trying to say is that just because a game is top notch in one aspect of it (graphics, mechanics, story, etc)... does not mean that the game was comprimised in the other aspects of the game... or that it means that the other aspects of the game was bad by any means.
Basicly I was trying to defend all the various levels of quality on each individual aspects of a game. XD
Be it agains the people who would say that, for example, Wasteland 2 sucks because it graphics are ancient... or vs people who say that, for example, Deus Ex Human Revolution sucked because it had very good graphics (since that to them ment that they had not put enough time in on the other aspects of the game)... or vs people who would claim any other aspect of any quality level was the reason the game sucks.
I don't denie that there probably are games out there that sucks no matter who you ask (maybe even their developers)... but claiming that a game sucks just because of one or a few thing/things in it, is just an opinion. Most games do not suck... most games are "just not for you/me"... and that's not really the same as sucking.
I mean... it's like some 30+ year old tough guy who only loves beer, sports and cars, complaining that the movie Twilight sucked... no... it did not suck... it was just not made for "you" in mind. It was made for a compleatly different audience in mind... and it would be that guys own damn fault for going to watch it to begin with then. XD
What I was trying to say is that just because a game is top notch in one aspect of it (graphics, mechanics, story, etc)... does not mean that the game was comprimised in the other aspects of the game... or that it means that the other aspects of the game was bad by any means.
Basicly I was trying to defend all the various levels of quality on each individual aspects of a game. XD
Be it agains the people who would say that, for example, Wasteland 2 sucks because it graphics are ancient... or vs people who say that, for example, Deus Ex Human Revolution sucked because it had very good graphics (since that to them ment that they had not put enough time in on the other aspects of the game)... or vs people who would claim any other aspect of any quality level was the reason the game sucks.
I don't denie that there probably are games out there that sucks no matter who you ask (maybe even their developers)... but claiming that a game sucks just because of one or a few thing/things in it, is just an opinion. Most games do not suck... most games are "just not for you/me"... and that's not really the same as sucking.
I mean... it's like some 30+ year old tough guy who only loves beer, sports and cars, complaining that the movie Twilight sucked... no... it did not suck... it was just not made for "you" in mind. It was made for a compleatly different audience in mind... and it would be that guys own damn fault for going to watch it to begin with then. XD
Conflict? No, certainly not. But most games have a time and/or money budget that means some aspect of the game is less well implemented then it could be. And often it's "story" or "gameplay" that get the short end of the stick.
I don't even want to think what a VR set-up like that costs. And I certainly don't have the room to put anything like that in my apartment.
Even if the NPCs don't react to you any more then they do in most games that mere fact that they're doing something besides sitting/standing around is a great leap forward.
Last edited:
- Status