They are not adapting the rules or claiming to, they are adapting the world/genre and ideaology of 2020 which I think most are missing. This game is about translating the cyberpunk 2020 feel and background/universe to 2077 not just taking everything and turning it into a game, which is the wisest thing they can do. The interlock system was extremely flawed compared to many game systems out there and the combat was even worse, this is not a turn based RPG. Which is why R.Tal modified and abandoned it more than once for their new systems and books.
This is not just a game for the niche 2020 pen and paper players, and it needs to work in a way that will appeal to that fact. And most people know level progression/item colors as a sense of accomplishment , the game will not be like a campaign that will continue on and that has ways that make up for not having levels.
And the thing that has been stated ad nauseam, what we saw in the demo is a work in progress and could change in the next year or two....that they are probably going to stay in development for.
This is not just a game for the niche 2020 pen and paper players, and it needs to work in a way that will appeal to that fact. And most people know level progression/item colors as a sense of accomplishment , the game will not be like a campaign that will continue on and that has ways that make up for not having levels.
And the thing that has been stated ad nauseam, what we saw in the demo is a work in progress and could change in the next year or two....that they are probably going to stay in development for.
Actually, from the beginning that was there stated intended goal.
Right, which is why virtually every Cyberpunk PNP website still used Interlock. Of the HUNDREDS of fansites from all over the world, less than an handful were written for fusion. The rules for Interlock are every bit as beloved as the Setting. Hell, in some cases more so, as there are plenty of people who create or adapt other settings to the rules, and they utnumber, at least from all practical accounts, the number of those who adapt the setting to completely different rules.
And Interlock has been by no means abandoned. Fusion is a modifed, updated version, but most of it is copy/pasted Interlock. This game, at least as much as has been seen, ignores both... seeming to go for just straight generic rpg elements.
Most people are booger eating morons.
Using the setting of Cyberpunk 2020, but completely ignoring its rules, its lethality, is the definition of half-assing it. I do not, I cannot believe this is what CDPR intends, not after all their promises of remaining faithful to the game.
I haven't seen indication of the "level dependancy" in items. As for the look, I believe some items may still be unimplemented and the devs used pl;aceholders. I hope there will be variety of stuff, not that all SMGs look the same, just have different stats. That's tempting for the devs, but I wouldn't suspect REDs of such a cheap way of cutting corners. So, we'll see in few months.
There was the game, back in the days, called "Tresspasser". Basically this...
Post automatically merged:
There was the game, back in the days, called "Tresspasser". Basically this...
Aaaaactually - from the beginning CDPR has said they will have to adjust the PnP system for 2077. If you can find a quote where they say they are going to be faithful, I'd be surprised.
Here's an article from 2013, talking about the game mechanics, working with Max Mike and translating from melee to shooter mechanics. Edited for size and non-CP things.
So, again, CDPR is shooting for themes, setting, flavour, history.
Mechanics - those are going to be adjusted to be more in line with studio preferences.
What, really, is the heart of 2020 mechanics, though? Some realism, some fun little skill/stat bits sure..but isn't it the lethality and lack of compromise for serious error? The, "make the right choice or pay" system?
If they can nail that feel - and I'm sure they can - then it will be Cyberpunk.
Here's an article from 2013, talking about the game mechanics, working with Max Mike and translating from melee to shooter mechanics. Edited for size and non-CP things.
This is a transcript from an interview by Polish podcast Masa Kultury.
The translation is the heroic effort of Kodaemon, an old witcher forumite, who translated it and transcripted it, which took him HOURS to do
For those who don't know, Adam Badowski was Art Director for The Witcher, Project Lead for The Witcher 2, and now is Managing Director, and as such is overseeing both future CDProjekts' titles.
Enjoy. )
MK: You mentioned having a big team - how many people are working on The Witcher 3? I guess we'll talk more about it later, but I suspect work at the studio is organised in such a way that you can take a breather and work on Cyberpunk for a bit when you're too tired of fantasy... but what size is the core team, how many people are working on TW3 right now?
AB: The Witcher 3 team itself is about 89 people, but there's also the engine team of course which is already over 20 people, then there's QA and so forth, and naturally some people work on both projects... But the core of the Witcher 3 team is about 89 people.
MK: And how does the Cyberpunk team compare to that? I'm wondering which of these games is currently the more important one - I understand that the hype for The Witcher 3 is greater than for Cyberpunk right now, but it's also a gigantic world...
AB: It depends on what you mean by important. The Witcher 3 is at a different stage of production than Cyberpunk - Cyber punk is about establishing a new brand... that kind of sounds bad, but it's about making sure the game is unique, that it carries new ideas that will really grip the audience, so we need to do a lot of experiments and prototypes. The Witcher 3 is a lot more advanced as a project, so in that sense it's more important, since it's coming out earlier. It's also the continuation of the saga, so that's the difference. Both projects are equally important really, they're the two hearts of the studio, we have two hearts. But their dynamics are different, working on them looks differently. One already has a lot of content ready, the other is more about new types of gameplay, new story threads, establishing the whole universe, the design bible...all fascinating stuff. I'm not saying production itself is not fascinating, but the dynamics are different.
MK: The PS4 seems a bit like a PC, so it will probably be easier to work with, right?
AB: It's a bit of a war of ambitions. Our greatest ambition is to making games, making content. I mean, it's nice to be a studio with a strong technology, but you have to remember how important the tools are. You have to do everything at once, you need to develop the tools for your technology, you have to develop the engine for your technology, you have to improve the visuals and you have to create the content, which is the most impoortant, since ultimately it's the game that matters. We're not Ubisoft and we'll never be, we want to be a studio that will never be larger than 200 people. We've all been through a lot here, we don't want to be a bloated corporation, we want to avoid the corporate model at all cost, so we'll never be able to afford making an engine first, finalizing it and only then starting to work on the game. That's fine in theory, but in reality, while staying independent -because we want to keep our independence- you have to make a profit, you have to make stuff that's good. Our aim is to make 90+ rated games, whether it's Metacritic or any other system - I don't want to discuss Metacritic here. This means at some point you have to choose - do you want to develop for the PS3, or do you want to put your strengtgh into developing the next Witcher. There are always these choices.It would be great if we could always do everything at once and do it good, but as I said - big corporations can afford that, EA, Ubisoft, who sometimes have real slaughers behind the scenes, closing studios so they can finish other project instead, stuff like that. We're different, we want to be a small or medium sized, independent studio, independent creatively, independent financially, so we need to manage our studio wisely. We won't be able to achieve everything, so we have to focus on what's most important. For me, that's content, that's games.
-----------------------------------------------------
MK: As far as I know, Mike Pondsmith is working more closely with you on Cyberpunk 2077, right?
AB: Yes, Mike Pondsmith is working more closely with us, but he's the guy who created the p&p system, that's over 40 sourcebooks - not all of them are from Talsorian, of course, but most of them are. That's Cyberpunk 2020, also Cyberpunk 3.0 which didn't realy stick... Anyway, Mike Pondsmith created the game mechanics, so not only the story, the other way around even he mostly did the mechanics for the game, and addons for that mechanic. Mike Pondsmith also worked at Microsoft, making games, so he knows what it's all about. This is why it was natural to enter a dialogue, since we're speaking the same language, the language of game developers, and we decided to use that. Of course, we have creative freedom just like with The Witcher, but Mike Pondsmith is sort of an advisor to us, who solved a lot of things in the game mechanics himself, since they're based on the mechanics of the pen & paper game. And that's great, because we have a largely unified, coherent RPG system thanks to that. There were some things that were questionable in terms of balance in the game, so we fixed that, and some things were not possible to carry over without breaking the player's experience, for example shooting has to be based on the player's skill somewhat, not just the character's, so we had to rework that, and of course Mike Pondsmith was indispensable. So, that's why the cooperation looks different here. Andrzej Sapkowski is the creator of the Witcher universe, a writer, so that's the level we could work with him on, but not on the gameplay and implementation level.
MK: You mentioned player skill in the context of Cyberpunk, that's interesting since it's different from The Witcher, where stats are quite important. Skill too, of course, but...
AB: It's the same in The Witcher and Cyberpunk, it's just that mechanics of shooting are different than mechanics of swordfighting. We chose a system for The Witcher where the game helps the player choose a good sequence, that is, it has to look good since Geralt is a master swordsman who does all these pirouettes and cat-like moves, so the game helps at that. Of course, it's all based on RPG stats, but when it comes to shooting, it's bad when you're aiming at the gead, and it's an obvious headshot from 1 meter away, but the game says "nope, the stats say something else". These are the problems that you have to find good solutions for, to eat the cookie and have the cookie, and that's what we've been working on with Mike Pondsmith.
MK: About Cyberpunk, maybe you could reveal what your idea for the game is. I mean of course it's going to be a story-based game, with a lot of moral choices, we can be sure of that. But I'm wondering about the hero, do you like the idea of a precisely characterised protagonist like Geralt or would you like to try something else, have more freedom in character creation, which is really the basis of most RPG systems, including Cyberpunk.
AB: Right. Of course, we will have character creation allowing both for female as well as male characters. In Mike Pondsmiths game, the character's backstory was really important - there were all these statistics, but that's where you started with, the backstory. Let's say you had two brothers, and one of these brothers could be used by the GM at some point in the game to make the story harder or weirder - the character was always important in the context of their past experiences. Of course it won't be Geralt, since Geralt is very well characterised in the short stories and novels, but it's still important to chreate a character who has some story behind them, some past misdeeds and experiences that influence the story that we'll be weaving later. This kind of sums up our approach. With Cyberpunk, we don't want to do this sort of laboratory cyberpunk, you know, running around labs and fighting rogue AIs, since that's not really that interesting. We want to have more Kingpin-like moments, I don't know if you remember that game...
MK: Sure.
AB: So, these street level stories that bring us closer to the character. Of course, there's always this epic moment, but we don't want it to be a game where we mow through hordes of corporate lab security guards. We want to explore other themes than that.
The translation is the heroic effort of Kodaemon, an old witcher forumite, who translated it and transcripted it, which took him HOURS to do
For those who don't know, Adam Badowski was Art Director for The Witcher, Project Lead for The Witcher 2, and now is Managing Director, and as such is overseeing both future CDProjekts' titles.
Enjoy. )
MK: You mentioned having a big team - how many people are working on The Witcher 3? I guess we'll talk more about it later, but I suspect work at the studio is organised in such a way that you can take a breather and work on Cyberpunk for a bit when you're too tired of fantasy... but what size is the core team, how many people are working on TW3 right now?
AB: The Witcher 3 team itself is about 89 people, but there's also the engine team of course which is already over 20 people, then there's QA and so forth, and naturally some people work on both projects... But the core of the Witcher 3 team is about 89 people.
MK: And how does the Cyberpunk team compare to that? I'm wondering which of these games is currently the more important one - I understand that the hype for The Witcher 3 is greater than for Cyberpunk right now, but it's also a gigantic world...
AB: It depends on what you mean by important. The Witcher 3 is at a different stage of production than Cyberpunk - Cyber punk is about establishing a new brand... that kind of sounds bad, but it's about making sure the game is unique, that it carries new ideas that will really grip the audience, so we need to do a lot of experiments and prototypes. The Witcher 3 is a lot more advanced as a project, so in that sense it's more important, since it's coming out earlier. It's also the continuation of the saga, so that's the difference. Both projects are equally important really, they're the two hearts of the studio, we have two hearts. But their dynamics are different, working on them looks differently. One already has a lot of content ready, the other is more about new types of gameplay, new story threads, establishing the whole universe, the design bible...all fascinating stuff. I'm not saying production itself is not fascinating, but the dynamics are different.
MK: The PS4 seems a bit like a PC, so it will probably be easier to work with, right?
AB: It's a bit of a war of ambitions. Our greatest ambition is to making games, making content. I mean, it's nice to be a studio with a strong technology, but you have to remember how important the tools are. You have to do everything at once, you need to develop the tools for your technology, you have to develop the engine for your technology, you have to improve the visuals and you have to create the content, which is the most impoortant, since ultimately it's the game that matters. We're not Ubisoft and we'll never be, we want to be a studio that will never be larger than 200 people. We've all been through a lot here, we don't want to be a bloated corporation, we want to avoid the corporate model at all cost, so we'll never be able to afford making an engine first, finalizing it and only then starting to work on the game. That's fine in theory, but in reality, while staying independent -because we want to keep our independence- you have to make a profit, you have to make stuff that's good. Our aim is to make 90+ rated games, whether it's Metacritic or any other system - I don't want to discuss Metacritic here. This means at some point you have to choose - do you want to develop for the PS3, or do you want to put your strengtgh into developing the next Witcher. There are always these choices.It would be great if we could always do everything at once and do it good, but as I said - big corporations can afford that, EA, Ubisoft, who sometimes have real slaughers behind the scenes, closing studios so they can finish other project instead, stuff like that. We're different, we want to be a small or medium sized, independent studio, independent creatively, independent financially, so we need to manage our studio wisely. We won't be able to achieve everything, so we have to focus on what's most important. For me, that's content, that's games.
-----------------------------------------------------
MK: As far as I know, Mike Pondsmith is working more closely with you on Cyberpunk 2077, right?
AB: Yes, Mike Pondsmith is working more closely with us, but he's the guy who created the p&p system, that's over 40 sourcebooks - not all of them are from Talsorian, of course, but most of them are. That's Cyberpunk 2020, also Cyberpunk 3.0 which didn't realy stick... Anyway, Mike Pondsmith created the game mechanics, so not only the story, the other way around even he mostly did the mechanics for the game, and addons for that mechanic. Mike Pondsmith also worked at Microsoft, making games, so he knows what it's all about. This is why it was natural to enter a dialogue, since we're speaking the same language, the language of game developers, and we decided to use that. Of course, we have creative freedom just like with The Witcher, but Mike Pondsmith is sort of an advisor to us, who solved a lot of things in the game mechanics himself, since they're based on the mechanics of the pen & paper game. And that's great, because we have a largely unified, coherent RPG system thanks to that. There were some things that were questionable in terms of balance in the game, so we fixed that, and some things were not possible to carry over without breaking the player's experience, for example shooting has to be based on the player's skill somewhat, not just the character's, so we had to rework that, and of course Mike Pondsmith was indispensable. So, that's why the cooperation looks different here. Andrzej Sapkowski is the creator of the Witcher universe, a writer, so that's the level we could work with him on, but not on the gameplay and implementation level.
MK: You mentioned player skill in the context of Cyberpunk, that's interesting since it's different from The Witcher, where stats are quite important. Skill too, of course, but...
AB: It's the same in The Witcher and Cyberpunk, it's just that mechanics of shooting are different than mechanics of swordfighting. We chose a system for The Witcher where the game helps the player choose a good sequence, that is, it has to look good since Geralt is a master swordsman who does all these pirouettes and cat-like moves, so the game helps at that. Of course, it's all based on RPG stats, but when it comes to shooting, it's bad when you're aiming at the gead, and it's an obvious headshot from 1 meter away, but the game says "nope, the stats say something else". These are the problems that you have to find good solutions for, to eat the cookie and have the cookie, and that's what we've been working on with Mike Pondsmith.
MK: About Cyberpunk, maybe you could reveal what your idea for the game is. I mean of course it's going to be a story-based game, with a lot of moral choices, we can be sure of that. But I'm wondering about the hero, do you like the idea of a precisely characterised protagonist like Geralt or would you like to try something else, have more freedom in character creation, which is really the basis of most RPG systems, including Cyberpunk.
AB: Right. Of course, we will have character creation allowing both for female as well as male characters. In Mike Pondsmiths game, the character's backstory was really important - there were all these statistics, but that's where you started with, the backstory. Let's say you had two brothers, and one of these brothers could be used by the GM at some point in the game to make the story harder or weirder - the character was always important in the context of their past experiences. Of course it won't be Geralt, since Geralt is very well characterised in the short stories and novels, but it's still important to chreate a character who has some story behind them, some past misdeeds and experiences that influence the story that we'll be weaving later. This kind of sums up our approach. With Cyberpunk, we don't want to do this sort of laboratory cyberpunk, you know, running around labs and fighting rogue AIs, since that's not really that interesting. We want to have more Kingpin-like moments, I don't know if you remember that game...
MK: Sure.
AB: So, these street level stories that bring us closer to the character. Of course, there's always this epic moment, but we don't want it to be a game where we mow through hordes of corporate lab security guards. We want to explore other themes than that.
So, again, CDPR is shooting for themes, setting, flavour, history.
Mechanics - those are going to be adjusted to be more in line with studio preferences.
What, really, is the heart of 2020 mechanics, though? Some realism, some fun little skill/stat bits sure..but isn't it the lethality and lack of compromise for serious error? The, "make the right choice or pay" system?
If they can nail that feel - and I'm sure they can - then it will be Cyberpunk.
I can see where this is going due to those two statements. But.
Lets take the rules of cyberpunk for a moment, and think about them in a computer game.
IF they were to take that idea of 2020 rules / lethality 100% faithful, you would die in the game...at some point. Oh that horrible fumble at the wrong time. Headshot from a sniper you can't see, and so on. The fact 2020 uses a turn based and initiative system for combat, and Rolls for everything. Allready right there you need to change most of that.
Ok so you died do you start the story over playing V again? that doesn't really fit into the pen and paper idea without a new character. Make up some excuse why you could have a clone when you are a nobody without money? or IF you didn't get your head blown off, that you spend time in a hospital/healing somewhere? (Yes there is cyberware, yes there is speed heal or better in 2077 but you can only have so much of that) Because that is what happens in 2020 if you go by the rules.
And using the assumption that a computer game has the same freedoms that a pen and paper game has, it does not. There is a set story and voiced characters, a protagonist that needs to get from A to B to C etc, and if the main character "gets killed" what then?
Try to explain away all the things "they could/should do" from the pen and paper, but this is not some SQUAD/SCUM/DayZ or other PVP FPS where you die by one shot or two and can just respawn on a timer, with a new class and/or no gear or whatever..it just would not work that way in a story based RPG videogame of this style.
That is like killing off the main protagonist in a movie before the first hour is up, except that you can't continue now because the script still has them in it till the end.
You can go one direction or the other.
And at the end of the day, the creator of said "beloved" system has given his blessing to them and has been working with them to make the game, so really it is all moot aside from preference and opinion.
Don't like it, don't buy it or chill and wait to see what the finished product is not what a pre-alpha demo slice is, I think they only mentioned that about a half dozen times during the video.
There's a difference between remaining truly 100% faithful and being able to translate PnP mechanics to a video game. It's just not the same. @Punknaught2020 said it well.
About the promises, I'm gonna say something that I stated in another thread:
Keep this in mind as development goes on. And try not to be let down when the game comes out and it's not "faithful" enough. The mechanics just don't integrate well enough for a video game. It's not the same, and thinking it's going to be the same is a bit unrealistic.
As to theme, setting, flavor, and history I'd say CDPR has done a magnificent job.
Here we'll agree to disagree.
From my perspective certain mechanics are every bit as important as the setting and flavor.
By changing to fairly typical FPS game mechanics the resulting loss of CP2020's lethality makes combat not only "just another option" but often the preferred one as it doesn't require the time, effort, and planning non-combat solutions generally do. Just blow everything away, easy, no need to search out solutions.
And also by taking the FPS game approach CDPR gutted the vast majority of what makes an RPG an RPG. You're no longer playing a character with unique attributes, skills, and limitations but an avatar of you the player with no advantages, or disadvantages you don't bring into the game. Sure some special abilities become available as you play the game, the exact same ones everyone else playing the game gets, this isn't "character development". Yes you can select how to improve in each of the three skill trees, but if all you want is a single ability/perk from the 5th tier of a tree, tough, you need to take the first four levels of the tree, with abilities/perks you may not want and never use. In a classless RPG you can generally elect to become good at any single skill if you wish.
Then there's the loss of the firm basis in reality CP2020 has. Typical game mechanics replace well implemented systems for dealing with weapons, armor, combat, skills, damage, healing, persuasion, etc.
So in conclusion.
If you were looking forward to an interesting and different gameplay experience, you're not getting one. A different setting, sure, but every FPS has a different setting. CP2077 doesn't really look to be anything special gameplay wise.
Last edited:
What about Trauma Team? I read there are "different levels of service". Or is this not true and there is "Platinum" level only?
And even if you can die - so what? Combat should be a serious risk. Enough so to make you consider different approaches, if you aren't good at it. Or seek out illegal body modifications designed specifcally for surviving combat.
Besides, don't we have savegames? Why assume we are playing on Ironman?
Just because it has an FPS approach doesn't mean the RPG elements aren't there. Fallout 3 or Fallout: New Vegas are examples of these.As to theme, setting, flavor, and history I'd say CDPR has done a magnificent job.
Here we'll agree to disagree.
From my perspective certain mechanics are every bit as important as the setting and flavor.
By changing to fairly typical FPS game mechanics the resulting loss of CP2020's lethality makes combat not only "just another option" but often the preferred one as it doesn't require the time, effort, and planning non-combat solutions generally do. Just blow everything away, easy, no need to search out solutions.
And also by taking the FPS game approach CDPR gutted the vast majority of what makes an RPG an RPG. You're no longer playing a character with unique attributes, skills, and limitations but an avatar of you the player with no advantages, or disadvantages you don't bring into the game. Sure some special abilities become available as you play the game, the exact same ones everyone else playing the game gets, this isn't "character development". Yes you can select how to improve in each of the three skill trees, but if all you want is a single ability/perk from the 5th tier of a tree, tough, you need to take the first four levels of the tree, with abilities/perks you may not want and never use. In a classless RPG you can generally elect to become good at any single skill if you wish.
Then there's the loss of the firm basis in reality CP2020 has. Typical game mechanics replace well implemented systems for dealing with weapons, armor, combat, skills, damage, healing, persuasion, etc.
So in conclusion.
If you were looking forward to an interesting and different gameplay experience, you're not getting one. A different setting, sure, but every FPS has a different setting. CP2077 doesn't really look to be anything special gameplay wise.
Also, regarding time, effort, planning, so what if it has an FPS approach? You still have to plan out your attack. And with the leveling system in place, you can't just kill everyone in sight. You need to learn and gain more experience.
They're still working on the game mechanics. Everything right now except for stuff that they've confirmed is subject to change. We know they read these forums, so with the amount of people talking about combat, I'm sure combat is gonna change for it to feel a bit more lethal.
This is CDPR we're talking about. I have faith in them. I think they're doing the best they can with the resources they have. So let's remain hopeful. I've seen a lot of pessimism in these forums, and I don't think that helps the devs. Again, they read the forums, so they're most likely taking the ideas we've offered into consideration. I think we should just wait for the next news release or demo and see what they've got and what they've improved before jumping onto the "welp everything i saw is a giant disappointment" train.
You have the wrong idea WHY you "can't just kill everyone in sight".
People are people. They die easily. Not just you, but them too. What can make people stronger is the ability to afford good gear, backup, body modifications, etc. But it has NOTHING to do with levels as such. You only level up to improve existing skills or learn new ones. It doesn't directly improve your survivability whatsoever.
That's why there shouldn't be "you can kill level 5 Dog, but level 55 Dog will kill you" in Cyberpunk 2077. Both should be able to kill you just fine, if you aren't smart. Or lucky.
I see you found a religion.
Because the original statement was that they aren't using the 2020 pen and paper rules verbatim. Which would mean permadeath, no saves and so on. It's not about actually being killed in game, it's about how the rules aren't being followed exactly and specifically as violently/fatal.
If combat is the end solution for most encounters, despite your best efforts, or so heavily promoted that other playstyles are essentially worthless, I will say 2077 doesn't have my interest at all.
Fortunately, I have faith that CDPR will offer enough non-combat solutions to situations that I'll be happy. But if, for some strange reason that I can't foresee, the game does end up being 80% an FPS, well, there's always Copper Dreams, I guess.
Fortunately, I have faith that CDPR will offer enough non-combat solutions to situations that I'll be happy. But if, for some strange reason that I can't foresee, the game does end up being 80% an FPS, well, there's always Copper Dreams, I guess.
They already stated they aren't following all the rules to the letter, so I can easily see them using lethal combat and allowing to save game at any moment. And a separate difficulty option for people who want something closer to PnP rules - permadeath, but with an ability to buy "Platinum" card from Trauma Team, if they can afford it. Until then, yeah, they ought to be careful. But that's the whole point: if it ain't dangerous, then it ain't interesting. And if it's too dangerous, then you should have the means to approach situation in a way that doesn't involve (as much) combat.
Last edited:
I really hope CDPR see this comment , I 100% agree with you on every lines you wrote
And there is nothing wrong with it. Otherwise we get into deadly 55lvl dog setting again.
And what is lethal and lack of compromise to the error in the combat system itself.?
Creeps lvl 3 (you can see their level thus correctly assume their danger) aren't that much lethal unless there is a ton of them and there was even an autoheal (not sure if just for the demo but it was there). You can be running trough voley of bullets to wait in the cover and then spray someones head for multiple 17 dmg, what ever it means (heck, you can se their helath so you know what it means exactly!).
In those PnP games I remember a guard or a thug with a common pistol was a thread because you didn't even see hi gun skill. All you could say is that he has a gun. That is dangerous. Even if could be just lucky. It wasn't about just overshoot him, it was about not getting hit, not to cause alarm (or hit really hard)... etc.
One thing is not being 100% Cyberpunk 2020 PnP, or a realistic shooter like SWAT, but being DnD or WoW like MMO is an another.
At least that how the gameplay felt to me, after the great atmosphere and visuals.
So relatable, anyone who played Borderlands knows that system.
>get a gun levels higher than you
>grind up to that weapon
>use it while it is relevant (because the enemies will bullet sponge)
>ditch it and repeat
-The last zelda did something interesting, every weapon you pick will break, so enemies don't have to scale at all and the game at every stage stays consistent, even if you find a rare weapon it will eventually break, but the game makes sure you always have atleast common weapons.
-I will love to see that translated to CP, like, you find this really cool auto targeting smg but ofc you have no idea how to maintain and clean it, since you are no Maelstrom or gunsmith, the gun will slowly start to jam/slow its rate of fire/interfere with your augments as you use it, at some point you will have to throw it away, but that's the case of a really rare gun, once you lose that you go back to the common weapons.
Which is just plain illogical.
What makes someone hard to kill is his armor and ability not to get touched by a bullet, not how many mission he has done.