Mechanical Faithfulness to Cyberpunk 2020...

[Dragonkindred]

Does a few decades of experience with CP2020 mechanics as well as many dozens (probably hundreds by now) of other systems plus a pretty strong background in math count? But it would appear that you and I saw different demo videos so I'll wait until I get a gander at what you saw before I make any judgments. All I'll say for now is that what I saw pretty much jibes with Punknaught's observations and the decades of gaming where I've mowed down enemies quicker by hitting unarmored locations (especially headshots, which often get a damage multiplier) than by trying to go through their armor.



Like I've said quite a few times, I think that that is one of the inherent limitations of translating a P&P game to a CRPG. You can have real-time, player-driven combat (posssiblly influenced by character skill), you can have turn-based, character-driven combat, but you really can't blend to two to have real-time character-driven combat; you either break immersion with the timing or you rely on player skill heavily enough to earn accusations of being "just another FPS".

As for altering the damage based on skill, no. Bullets are produced with enough consistency that they will do consistent damage. The only way they could be affected by skill is that high skill makes it more likely to hit where you are aiming, and your skill will have you aiming at a spot spot that is worth a damage multiplier (usually heart or head). For those of us that know physics, nothing breaks immersion more than saying a projectile of X mass at Y velocity has it's momentum determined by GM/dev fiat instead of having an actual relationship to mass and velocity. There are reasons why the P&P game has skill affect one's chance of hitting the target with a firearm in the first place than have the skill affect damage directly. It'd be better and more realistic to have skill affect accuracy than damage. That is also the only way you can have character skill have any meaningful effect instead of making shooting solely a matter of player skill.

I agree with your point, I was just pointing out how they could be seeing it.

i guess a better option for that example would be the reduction of bullet spread as the skill increased. Giving you more hits and thus more damage without the individual bullets gaining extra damage "just because". Of cause, bullet spread is going to upset people as well...

 

[kofeiiniturpa]

Maybe you should have played in a harder difficulty so that every fight would be an interesting challenge if you feel ennemies are just slowing you down instead of being part of the fun.
Personally I prefer playing it on Nightmare difficulty.

Difficulty wasn’t really an issue (there were a number fun fights there). Repetition was, accompanied by pretty uninteresting character systems.

I like good challenge, but my view is also that difficulty in and of itself doesn’t equate to fun. ”Easy” can be just as fun as ”hard” if the system itself is fun. Bad or less than stellar systems tend to just get frustrating and further prolong the already dragging experience when tuned to the highest difficulty levels.
I.e. fights don’t really get all that more interesting, just longer to finish.

 

[metalmaniac21]

Maybe you should have played in a harder difficulty so that every fight would be an interesting challenge if you feel ennemies are just slowing you down instead of being part of the fun.
Personally I prefer playing it on Nightmare difficulty.

I do too, to justify being edgy guy by pure pragmatism and get into Morrigan's panties.

Bioware and female protagonist just don't co-exist in the same sentence, too. Just btw-ing.

accompanied by pretty uninteresting character systems.

I wish someone at least ported Pathfinder or D&D 3.5 from NWN 2 over there in DAO. It just asks for these particular fantasy rpg system rails to be put on.

 

[kofeiiniturpa]

I wish someone at least ported Pathfinder or D&D 3.5 from NWN 2 over there in DAO. It just asks for these particular fantasy rpg system rails to be put on.

I was never the biggest fan of DnD or its closest derivatives. All those THAC0 and Vancian rules (along with some others I can’t quite recall right now) felt too cumbersome. But DAO probably would’ve been better off with those. Probably.

 

[metalmaniac21]

I was never the biggest fan of DnD or its closest derivatives. All those THAC0 and Vancian rules (along with some others I can’t quite recall right now) felt too cumbersome. But DAO probably would’ve been better off with those. Probably.

Neither am I but trusting Bioware in crafting it's own thing just backfired.

 

[kofeiiniturpa]

but trusting Bioware in crafting it's own thing just backfired.

Yeah, it kinda did.

 

[Snowflakez]

Doesn’t really matter what it’s called, the effect is still the same. The constant fighting and mowing through hordes of enemies slowed the game to a crawl and in its exhausting repetition was one of the biggest reasons I never finished it.

(No, not a console version.)

You and me both. I liked the combat much more than the later games (because it reminded me of the KOTOR titles), but I don't think I've ever actually finished a DA:O campaign. I just get so bored with, as you said, the repetition.

Very few (if any?) alternate ways to complete objectives. The "skills," if you can call them that, sucked.

I definitely hope and expect to see more with 2077. And I think, at the very least, we will get that. I'm not saying it'll be revolutionary and the perfect solution to our RPG desires, but if they can make good on their more recent statements, I think it's a safe enough bet that it'll be a better RPG than DA:O.

Which... isn't saying much. But call me optimistic.

 

[kofeiiniturpa]

I liked the combat much more than the later games

I never played that series beyond DAO (the later titles didn't seem appealing or interesting on any level).

But yeah, the core of the combat design in DAO was relatively sound (for RtWP), and the problems lied elsewhere (the encounter design, the character systems...).

 

[Suhiira]

That's really the biggest problem with cRGs in general. With the exception of "Torment" (and even it had the infamous Modrons Maze) most center around combat. I understand why, it's easier to add another combat encounter rather then a quest and lots of people view anything that's not combat as side content.

And yes, many PnP games are run centering around it as well. But I find that especially in games with a lethal combat system combat is best if it's an infrequent, memorable, event. Even in a real war soldiers spend far less then 10% of their time fighting.

 

[kofeiiniturpa]

That's really the biggest problem with cRGs in general. ... most center around combat.

It’s a big part of the problem, but not the sole one.

Combat centered are fun. Wizardries and M&M games are almost pure combat grind, and they are really fun.

The problem is the balance of different kinds of content in relation to the implied core focus of the game (of course there are other things too, like systems design, encounter design, etc, but those are things that go deeper than needed here). You have these large games that advertise RPG depth and all that shit, and yet, most of the actual game consists of chopping people and critters into pieces with an occasional simplified dialog choice event. 90% of character systems and even the payoffs of those that seemingly aren’t (crafting, lockpicking, hacking, cooking...), are about combat; directly or indirectly.

Combat is and has been a big part of RPG’s and I don’t necessarily need that to suddenly do a complete 180 as the door of potential problems opens bith ways. But what I would want to some day see, is the expanding of the non-combat gameplay opportunities that, and whose reactivity, is not in some way hooked up with combat (proficiency nor direct avoidance).

 

[Snowflakez]

It’s a big part of the problem, but not the sole one.

Combat centered are fun. Wizardries and M&M games are almost pure combat grind, and they are really fun.

The problem is the balance of different kinds of content in relation to the implied core focus of the game (of course there are other things too, like systems design, encounter design, etc, but those are things that go deeper than needed here). You have these large games that advertise RPG depth and all that shit, and yet, most of the actual game consists of chopping people and critters into pieces with an occasional simplified dialog choice event. 90% of character systems and even the payoffs of those that seemingly aren’t (crafting, lockpicking, hacking, cooking...), are about combat; directly or indirectly.

Combat is and has been a big part of RPG’s and I don’t necessarily need that to suddenly do a complete 180 as the door of potential problems opens bith ways. But what I would want to some day see, is the expanding of the non-combat gameplay opportunities that, and whose reactivity, is not in some way hooked up with combat (proficiency nor direct avoidance).

By "proficiency nor direct avoidance," do you mean games like Dishonored (I know it's not an RPG) where the "non-combat" paths revolve around avoiding combat?

What, to you, would be an example of an RPG (or specific RPG system) that isn't about combat (directly or indirectly)? Note, I'm not disagreeing with anything you've said (the opposite), but I'd be curious to see what systems you have in mind that don't in some way tie to fighting.

One could even arguing that cooking in Skyrim ties to fighting, because it replenishes health and gives you buffs.

 

[kofeiiniturpa]

By "proficiency nor direct avoidance," do you mean games like Dishonored (I know it's not an RPG) where the "non-combat" paths revolve around avoiding combat?

Yes. And content in RPG's that works like that.

What, to you, would be an example of an RPG (or specific RPG system) that isn't about combat (directly or indirectly)? Note, I'm not disagreeing with anything you've said (the opposite), but I'd be curious to see what systems you have in mind that don't in some way tie to fighting.

You don't really need a specific system for that. Every skill and stat can be used as a metric of the physical ability of acting it out and and the knowledge of the subject.

What you need is focus on content that does not revolve around certain or impending violent conflict, where such is unnecessary or even completely useless, and that promotes having skills (having them in the game) whose combat application would be hard or highly indirect at best and being able to utilize even the combat skills in a more abstract way.

It could be a high level investigation mission. Or simply low level non-mission related mundane activities that have little but sometimes highly interesting payoffs. Or anything in between.

One could even arguing that cooking in Skyrim ties to fighting, because it replenishes health and gives you buffs.

Yes. That's my point. You cook to fare better in combat, no other use for it. You pick locks to get stuff to better fare in combat, or get stuff to sell so you get money to buy other stuff to better fare in combat. You learn to sneak so you can better fare in combat by not having to do it or that you can slit someones throat. And so on.

Creative content design is the key along with diverse character systems. Combat is where it is and happens when it does and that's fine, but unless the game itself is about combat, having everything revolve around it (skills, stats, missions, items, food, clothing, money, rewards...) is... well, not very creative. It's nothing new under the sun and simply tells the player there are no options... and even if there are in certain missions, they tend to be the least interesting gameplay-wise since few dialog options done right and then walking away is far less interesting mechanically than a 20-minute combat scenario.

This is something that CDPR should definitely be looking at. How to make non-combat gameplay interesting. What ways are there to interact with the world that would provide mechanically intriguing opportunites through the character build (in and out of missions).

 

[Nikola_Nesic]

When game force you to play in way you don't want or don't like just to get good ending or true ending it is really stupid, ending need to be result of your choices what you did what you pick to do with this guy did you help this guy or that other guy and so on, and not o yea you get bad ending just because you kill 40 random guards along the way.

Also in RPG stats really need to have full impact on combat on talk how your character is build, example some one may build there character to be melee fighter with high str and con who definitely more suited for combat approach, other can build character with high int and cha who can do most talk and events with out combat, or fully hybrid character who will be jack of all trades.

Pillars of Eternity use stats and skills really good, many skill checks in talk you can do stuff on few different ways, you can avoid combat in many parts of the game, ofc some combat going to be unavoidable.

I really hope stats in Cyberpunk 2077 have impact on combat, talk and events around you, really hope they add skill checks in talk and fix combat to be more tactical with stats around it, and not one more COD with cyberpunk theme.

 

[Snowflakez]

When game force you to play in way you don't want or don't like just to get good ending or true ending it is really stupid, ending need to be result of your choices what you did what you pick to do with this guy did you help this guy or that other guy and so on, and not o yea you get bad ending just because you kill 40 random guards along the way.

Killing 40 random guards is a choice, though. In fact, it's one of the choices a player in a game where non-combat is an option has the most control over. If you want to murder everything you see, fine, but all the better if the game world reacts to that, whether it be in the form of an ending or in-story events or NPC reactions.

 

[wisdom000]

Non-lethal attacks in games are always just cosmetic. Functionally there is zero difference between say, punching, or using a taster, and just straight up popping a cap in someones dome. Either way, that NPC is never seen again, there is never a "wow, you spared my life" moment later in the game where you run into someone, unless it was a very specifically scripted event.

Hell, the game itself rarely treats you any different. In most games, even if you take every pain in the world not to kill anyone, the enemies and guards still treat you as if you just killed the police chief and got the mayors daughter pregnant in the same night...

 

[Snowflakez]

Non-lethal attacks in games are always just cosmetic. Functionally there is zero difference between say, punching, or using a taster, and just straight up popping a cap in someones dome. Either way, that NPC is never seen again, there is never a "wow, you spared my life" moment later in the game where you run into someone, unless it was a very specifically scripted event.

Hell, the game itself rarely treats you any different. In most games, even if you take every pain in the world not to kill anyone, the enemies and guards still treat you as if you just killed the police chief and got the mayors daughter pregnant in the same night...

What's your point? Don't have them because they are "just cosmetic?"

Lots of broad assumptions, which don't take into account some of the greatest stealth games out there, which can and do react to how lethal/non-lethal you played the game.

Furthermore, NPCs that are knocked out can be woken up by their buddies, or wake up on their own, making the level more challenging, thus more entertaining and fun for people like me.

Not every single mechanic in a game has to have a distinct "you did X, so now you get Y" - although that's preferable, sometimes it's nice to have options for players purely for the sake of challenge and gameplay variation. Plus, that can often feel a little too "gamey."

Let's name a few games that get non-lethal gameplay "right," in my opinion.

• Dishonored - very different endings and dialogue depending on how many NPCs you kill. Applies to all of the series' games and DLC, as far as I know.
• Newer Deus Ex games - dialogue changes, NPCs react differently depending on your actions regarding lethal/non-lethal gameplay.
• Mark of the Ninja - not sure if there's story changes, but non-lethal gameplay is a MASSIVE, fun, entertaining challenge. It's very difficult, but also very satisfying.
• Hitman (all games, except Absolution) - Another game without direct story changes, but non-lethal gameplay is rewarded in terms of money, and it makes finishing levels less chaotic. The lower the body count/the more enemies you circumvent via distractions or stealth, the less opportunity for enemies to be alerted. The game's in-game newspapers also react to your playstyle, at least in Blood Money.
• Alpha Protocol - directly reacts to your playstyle, IIRC.

In virtually all of these games, the non-lethal options are not only satisfying, but often directly rewarded in some way. *shrug* the more non-lethal stealth or combat options in 2077, the better, in my opinion.

It's a fun playstyle, and I don't mind if the game reacts to it in a negative way (you left a bad guy alive so now he comes back to haunt you).

 

[Suhiira]

I think @wisdom000 's point is there no "reward" for taking a non-lethal approach in most games. Some games penalize you for killing stuff; you killed X guards, you're EEEEEEVVVVVIIIILLLL !!!!! But 90% of the time in games it makes no difference whatsoever if you knock them out or blow their head off.

CP2077 has an opportunity here.
Corporate espionage, sabotage, kidnapping key personnel, and such is just part of doing business in Cyberpunk. If you don't leave a string of corpses behind the cops have far better things to do then devote any significant resources to tracking you down. BUT! If every job you do results in serious overtime for the coroner they should hunt you down.

So it's not so much you get a "good" result from a non-lethal approach but you avoid becoming 'Public Enemy #1' which makes future jobs easier, the cops aren't actively looking for you.

This also has a little gameplay style advantage.
The folks that like combat can get more of it because of their actions, those that prefer to avoid it get less.
Win, win.

 

[Nikola_Nesic]

like Wisdom000 say most of the time you kill your self to go non-lethal path and still 95% of NPC don't care what you did and still hunt you like you are most wanted man on planet.

I don't say non-lethal path is bad, but is often to much pain and you don't get any reward, even in Deus Ex human revolution i play it mix of non-lethal and lethal still i got same 3 option in the end like my friend who play non-lethal from the start.

Also yes killing guards is a choice i pick but i want that end reflect what i did with NPC that are tie to the story, important NPC if you count random enemy's and so then yeah you need to get evil end in 90% of the games.

 

[kofeiiniturpa]

I've said this before a couple of times (though, years ago...), but the game could keep track on the players bodycount and have it cumulatively affect the characters personality and pose (the way s/he looks to other NPCs - not that they know you’re ”a villain”, but that your posture and demeanor look threatening and unpleasant - the tone and wording of dialog options, the availability of options in certain missions where there are polarized options like being kind or vicious). Certain NPC's and groups might like a harsh person more than one who's kind and vice versa, and an opportunist who balances things out gets a bit of reactivity from both sides of the psyche, but not the extremes of either.

It might also count in other actions that can be put on the spectrum of moral-immoral.

This would force the player to think about his approach and react (reward and punish) to it accordingly. Non-lethal and lethal approaches included.

 

[SigilFey]

I've said this before a couple of times (though, years ago...), but the game could keep track on the players bodycount and have it cumulatively affect the characters personality and pose (the way s/he looks to other NPCs - not that they know you’re ”a villain”, but that your posture and demeanor look threatening and unpleasant - the tone and wording of dialog options, the availability of options in certain missions where there are polarized options like being kind or vicious). Certain NPC's and groups might like a harsh person more than one who's kind and vice versa, and an opportunist who balances things out gets a bit of reactivity from both sides of the psyche, but not the extremes of either.

It might also count in other actions that can be put on the spectrum of moral-immoral.

This would force the player to think about his approach and react (reward and punish) to it accordingly. Non-lethal and lethal approaches included.

I'm on this side of the fence, myself. (And while we're bringing up old arguments......) I'm not saying that combat-oriented games are not fun, but far too often, all aspects of a cRPG get funneled into some form of "combat mechanic". Like the Bethesda games (and I enjoy the Elder Scrolls series immensely), the character customization is, for the largest part, only cosmetic. It's splitting hairs to say that playing a theif / assassin is any different than playing a sword-and-board warrior in heavy plate. The gameplay doesn't change at all -- only the combat changes. I'll still be fighting the same, pre-determined enemies in roughly the same order to get largely the same outcome no matter what I do. The character customization simply means do I kill these 3 bandits with and axe, an arrow, or a fireball? Do I sneak up to them and backstab, or do I use a special warcry power and charge in? No matter what, those 3 bandits are going to be dead before the story will advance.

RPGs really need to start opening up various pathways that allow me to achieve the outcome I desire. Or, at the least, let me achieve the required goal in a way I desire. Sneaking and avoiding all combat should be path to victory. Using "spells" in non-violent ways to manipulate the situation should be a path to victory. A character with high wisdom or diplomacy should be able to use speech as a path to victory. Only warriors should be regularly relying on combat to move forward.

To that end, I love what I was seeing in the demo. Granted, it was a gameplay debut, so naturally, the devs are going to want to show off the flashy stuff. I was looking at the other dialogue options, though. I'm willing to bet that if V and Jackie find a way to raise the money for that bot on their own, you can get it and leave without a shot being fired.