Level/ Cred cap increase!

[Obsidian_Crane]

My issue is that if you claim your game is "open world", then I'm going to expect that you built it as one. But they simply didn't.

What is your definition of "open world"?

Because how you define it will affect how you see the game's position as "open world".

I see some points where the game trips up (Wakako's false choice being one, but this is the end of the Tutorial so I forgive it), but outside of that the game qualifies under my understanding of "open world".

So perhaps its a matter of definition, rather than content that is the problem?

 

[Trykz]

What is your definition of "open world"?

Because how you define it will affect how you see the game's position as "open world".

I see some points where the game trips up (Wakako's false choice being one, but this is the end of the Tutorial so I forgive it), but outside of that the game qualifies under my understanding of "open world".

So perhaps its a matter of definition, rather than content that is the problem?

I posted the literal definition of an "open world" in an earlier post, but okay. Here it is again:

What does open world mean in games?
In video games, an open world is a game mechanic of using a virtual world that the player can explore and approach objectives freely, as opposed to a world with more linear and structured gameplay.

This has been the LITERAL DEFINITION of "open world" from the very beginnings of video game history. This game? It ain't that.

 

[Simpson3000]

Street cred should have been the main focus. IMO, But sadly it really means nothing apart from vendors offering more or higher tier options. As another thread has said, having good street cred should determine the way the world looks at you and interacts/reacts. But again that is sadly missed.

Indeed, it really disturbs me how often npc´s tell my V that they dont know him, never heared of him with street cred 50. Whats worth is a reputation if nobody heared from you ever?

 

[Steelebeaver]

Completely agree about Conan Exiles. Great game, and the epitome of what an open world game is supposed to be. I've personally never played the Witcher games. Though from what I hear about them, I just might.

I have to wonder WHY this game feels open world to you after playing CE. Could it be that you feel this way because the world "seems" to open up once you complete "The Heist"? Because here again, is just another illusion. Because certain content is locked away for the sake of the main quest's story. Seriously. Go try to meet Panam right after the Johnny sequence in V's apartment. You can't. Now ask yourself why.

It's because she's not there UNTIL you talk to Takemura in Tom's Diner, which opens up the branches to find the guy who created the biochip, and the branch to find Evelyn. AND because Johnny has a line in each of the initial sequences with those characters. The entirety of the remaining game continues on in this SAME trend of illusion until you get to the point where you fork off into whatever ending sequence you've been working toward at Johnny's grave site. Why?

Because you're a hamster on a wheel and NOT playing in a truly open world game. And they put you on that wheel in..... yep, Watson. A game's "prologue" being a closed experience is not what I have an issue with. They're typical of most games as part of the "tutorial sequence" to familiarize you with the game, it's premise, and it's mechanics. Like the prison in Oblivion. Or the cart ride in Skyrim. Or Vault 111 in Fallout 4. In ALL of those games, once you're out of the prologue, you do what you want. Because that's the freedom of choice open world games give you.

My issue is that if you claim your game is "open world", then I'm going to expect that you built it as one. But they simply didn't.

I guess for me I break things up into three categories -- Non Linear, Open World, Sand Box -- And these are only my definitions...

Non Linear refers to how I play the narrative, and how many choices I have that can effect my play though of the game. I feel games like VM:B are non-linear, but not open world, or sand box.

Open World refers to games in which I feel that I am at a theme park, and I can go to any ride I want at any time, and I have the whole theme park open to me. In this game once they open the theme park, like you said after Takemura, I can do gigs, main story, or side quest. And I have my choice of when I can do it. Many use theme parks to also include linearity like in MMOs, not me.

Sand Box to me is when there is no prescribed path to follow in how I even play or advance the game. The game is what I make of it, to use Conan Exiles as an example, I can build stuff, progress through chapters, wander endlessely, ignore the story completely, it is completely what I make of it. And personally allows for the best roleplaying experience I have had in ages.

Furthermore, I feel like games can have emphasis in 1 or all 3. However, the more you do in all categories the more expensive a game becomes to make. Some examples of how I rate games.

Black Desert Online / Conan Exiles: Open World, and Sand box, but very linear
Witcher 3 / C77: Open World and fairly linear, with no sandbox elements.
Witcher 1/2: Fairly non-linear, not really open world, and not sandbox.
Daggerfall/Morrowind: Fairly linear, but both have elements of sandbox and open world
Arcanum: Non-Linear, kind of open world, and not very sandbox.

I have seen people mix and match these terms, but I have found that by breaking things up it's easier for me to categorize games. For instance people will describe MMO's as either sandbox or themepark, but Black Desert Online proves you can do both.

 

[Trykz]

I guess for me I break things up into three categories -- Non Linear, Open World, Sand Box -- And these are only my definitions...

And I can certainly respect that. For you.

But it wasn't you who said to me "next gen, open world RPG" (or "action adventure", whatever) which prompted me to pull out my wallet. And I expect that when a company describes their game that way to me, then that is the kind of game they're selling me. "Open world" has a literal definition. A definition that has existed since the dawn of video gaming. And I'm unaware of ANY game or company that has tried to "redefine" what that means in any way.

 

[anyawow]

I would ask why it takes so long to level. I am level 30 with 50 street cred. Street Cred is basically worthless, except for a superficial requirement for purchases. I played on hard for most of my levels, then switched to very hard. I suppose should have just started at very hard?

 

[Trykz]

I would ask why it takes so long to level. I am level 30 with 50 street cred. Street Cred is basically worthless, except for a superficial requirement for purchases. I played on hard for most of my levels, then switched to very hard. I suppose should have just started at very hard?

Because once you get out of Watson and advance a level or two into Act 2, the content you left unfinished there begins to sharply decline as leveling content. And that carries straight through the game. The remedy is easy though if CDPR really wants to fix it. Level content "beneath" the player's level, "closer" to the player's current level so it doesn't trivialize because it's never actually "out-leveled".

 

[Steelebeaver]

And I can certainly respect that. For you.

But it wasn't you who said to me "next gen, open world RPG" (or "action adventure", whatever) which prompted me to pull out my wallet. And I expect that when a company describes their game that way to me, then that is the kind of game they're selling me. "Open world" has a literal definition. A definition that has existed since the dawn of video gaming. And I'm unaware of ANY game or company that has tried to "redefine" what that means in any way.

I think your definition, or the standard definition, jives with my definition. I guess I'm just a bit more flexible of when a game becomes "Open World", i.e. how long their tutorial is. Corollary, playing Baldur's Gate the first time, while I know it wasn't open world, the flexibility of being able to go anywhere in the lower sword coast felt awesome! Playing Baldur's Gate 2 I was completely disappointed because it was just a linear, hub based pause and play fight fest (with romances, lol). I get it we all have expectations, and sometimes games don't live up to them.

 

[Trykz]

I think your definition, or the standard definition, jives with my definition. I guess I'm just a bit more flexible of when a game becomes "Open World", i.e. how long their tutorial is. Corollary, playing Baldur's Gate the first time, while I know it wasn't open world, the flexibility of being able to go anywhere in the lower sword coast felt awesome! Playing Baldur's Gate 2 I was completely disappointed because it was just a linear, hub based pause and play fight fest (with romances, lol). I get it we all have expectations, and sometimes games don't live up to them.

Between you and I, yes. But between CDPR and I? Nope.

It goes without saying that you and I should have differences over what we "think" of how a game should be defined. But between the company selling a product and the customer purchasing it, I expect to be sold what I was told I was buying. By the literal definition of what they claim it to be.

And by literal definition, this game is NOT what they say it is. Not even close.

 

[Obsidian_Crane]

I posted the literal definition of an "open world" in an earlier post, but okay. Here it is again:



This has been the LITERAL DEFINITION of "open world" from the very beginnings of video game history. This game? It ain't that.

That one sentence doesn't answer the question of how you define "open world" simply because it fails to recognise technical limitations at a minimum, or even consider broader contexts that limit "freedom" in game design.

Consider this more detailed, and arguably realistic, expansion on your 1 sentence: "Players typically do not encounter loading screens common in linear level designs when moving about the game world, with the open-world game using strategic storage and memory techniques to load the game world in a dynamic and seamless manner. Open-world games still enforce many restrictions in the game environment, either because of absolute technical limitations or in-game limitations imposed by a game's linearity."

With this broader understanding of "open world", CP77 certainly qualifies as "open world".

Believing a game company when they say "next gen" is like believing McDonalds has "gourmet" burgers, just because their menu says it.

 

[Trykz]

That one sentence doesn't answer the question of how you define "open world" simply because it fails to recognise technical limitations at a minimum, or even consider broader contexts that limit "freedom" in game design.

That "one sentence" says all that needs to be said because it's not implicitly MY definition.

It is, and has ALWAYS been, "THE" definition of open world. My complaint with the game has nothing to do with them calling it "next gen". But I'm pretty sure you knew that.

Whether it's next gen or not is irrelevant to the fact that I cannot "explore and approach content freely". And the last part of that definition says exactly WHY. Because the world IS "linear and structured". It's not like I'm expecting to be able to start the main story at the end. Nor do I expect to see some story related content. But when you tell me your game is "open world", then I DO expect to be able to move around the world without restriction beyond what's connected to the main story quest. I don't want my hand held or to be "protected" from higher level content. Because that's NORMAL for ANY truly open world game to NOT do.

 

[Atletikus]

Rather than complaining about low level cap, I would rather have asked why we level so fast. Particularly street cred. Having character builds who sacrifice some ares to be great at others is one of the interesting things about RPGs. Secondarily I would have asked why the balancing is so poor as you level up to immortality and one-shot killing everything.

 

[Cantina12]

I understand an online game needs some form of cap. But when it comes to single player games, having a cap has always irked me. Nine times out of ten the content will exceed the cap and well, boredom kicks in. Yeah, let me go do X so I can get what exactly? Waste my time? No, Thank you. Say what you will about Bugthesda, at least they don't leash progression for players.

Before, I even went to start ANY of the Second Act missions, (aside from meeting Taki) I hit level 50 Street Cred. (Sighs). Yet, on my map there were still loads of quests to do. Why isn't Street Cred more important then level? I mean you are told, your Cred means everything. So why have both Street Cred and level? Why not merge them into one? Then take the damn boot off the cap. Add while your at it CDPR, take the cap off Attributes and add in the ability to respec those too. Most people want to enjoy what we can of this buggy mess, but when you put a damn chain around peoples neck, well, people have a tendency to get bored and move on.

 

[EllFiend]

Indeed, it really disturbs me how often npc´s tell my V that they dont know him, never heared of him with street cred 50. Whats worth is a reputation if nobody heared from you ever?

Exactly! Hopefully they rework the Street Cred system, along with the AI system.

*Edit* I'm all for losing the LvL system and having just Street cred, and bumping stats. It would fit much better. In our skill menu they could just have a highlighted border around whatever stats we are increasing which would give you XP and the skill point to choose whatever talent in that tree. Put the focus on street Cred and it being impactful to the world and interaction/reactions.

 

[rudyvassar]

In short, what I'm asking is.
Once you hit level 50 which is max and 40 max cred, what's the point in doing any side stuff? no gains besides money.

Actually, 50 is also the max for street cred, and I reached that after doing dozens of side quests...

...before reaching level 30.

Which is MY gripe--why is xp from side quests so low? I was getting about half a level of street cred per side quest, but hardly any xp at all, and now I'm looking at the final questline and I just barely hit level 35.

How about boosting xp for side quests, or give the main quests far larger xp rewards.