RPG would be, for an example:
Im against Cyberware - so I will be normal human without enhancement. You look more trustworthy. EMP cant hurt you. Enemy Netrunner has no effect on you.
If you are full of cyberware, you look intimidating and some area (no cyberware allowed) you cant entry without hesitation. Alternative way bribe, violence or convince. You are very powerful, but have biggest weakness, too.
Some to meet NPCs like Cyberware-hater or Cyberware-lover like Adam. Or its about your build how much you spent (Attribute dialogue seems to weak, how about Talent?)
That makes more RPG.
The whole question is a bit tedious. It quickly decends to the question 'what is a rpg', and this will soon lead to some purist telling you that a game is only allowed to call itself rpg if it matches whatever criteria they just made up.
You can keep it pretty simple and say: CP is definetly more rpg-ish then TW3. If you think TW3 is an rpg, then CP is as well without a doubt. If you think neither is a rpg, then I don't care.
Typical conflict point is the question of: How much choice do you have?
And here is the thing: Typicaly a rpg leaves you a lot of choice on how you want to solve your mission. Do you want to burst in through the front door, or sneak through the back entrance? Guns or knifes? Light armor or heavy? Bribe or threaten?
Only very few rpgs ever leave you even any choice on how the plot will end. Most rpgs have a predetermined story with a predetermined endpoint. Some leave you a few choices.
TW3 had three. FA-NV had 4. FA4 also 4 I think. FA3 only one iirc. KCD only one ending. Skyrim one ending. Dragons Dogma two endings (even though the second is 'I surrender').
Cyberpunk has 7.
In the end, rpgs arn't about choice, they are about the illusion of choice. The story is always written before you even start to play.
And thats not even true only for computer rpgs. I 'worked' as a gamemaster for pp rpgs for over 15 years, did hundreds of adventured with dozend different groups. Shall I tell you a GM secret? Every single adventure, no exception, ended exactly how I had planed it, and no player ever complained about the lack of choice in the end. Because I maintaned the illusion of choice.
Sure, every now and then you'll meet a smartass who will be like 'but my character doesn't want to go to Mirkwood'. Dude, see what it says here 'The necromancer of Mirkwood', thats on the table for tonight. Take it or leave.
Also the dialogues.
View attachment 11140925
I've made a whole topic about how bad there are:
When Fallout 4 came out it was criticized for having only 4 choices in dialogues. Cyberpunk have mostly 2. One blue and the other yellow. Yes, yes sometimes there is more but it is not Fallout New Vegas. The choices in the dialogues feel shallow to me. I wish I could talk more and shoot...forums.cdprojektred.com
I couldn't care less. No need for any voiced dialogue at all for me. Maybe just the main dialogue, important lines, but "side questions" don't need any voice acting at all.The problem with dialogue choices comes from the demand of todays gaming culture that values production more than substance. When you need to have great voice acting in 50 different languages, or even in 1, it becomes very hard to have the dialogue options of older games, when the dialogue was text only.
Indeed, lore and world information should always be delivered via dialogue and scenes from the world itself, books ("data shards") should be a redundant extra and not one of the main ways to learn about the world around and it's characters im detail. Much better when you get learn about it all via interesting dialogue.THis is so depressing