The need for Roleplay?
A character without any shooting skills shoudn't be able to fire a straight bullet beside pure luck no matter the player's skills.
A character with max shooting skills should have an huge aim assist to ba as good shooter no matter the player's skills.
If you roleplaying "bad shooter but good diplomate" in "pure RPG" you avoiding gunfight, because your numbers in shooter skills are low.
If you roleplaying "bad shooter but good diplomate" in "shooter RPG" you avoiding gunfight, because you are roleplaying "bad shooter but good diplomate".
So you can avoid gunfight, almost no difference if you hasn't high numbers in shooting skills. Only what you have your numbers in case of RPG and you has your own fantasy in SHOOTER RPG .
The only disadvantage of the Shooter RPG is that to play the role of a bad shooter in the gunfight, you need to miss by yourself or shoot in the enemy's torso.
If you roleplaying "bad shooter but good diplomate" in "pure RPG" you avoiding gunfight, because your numbers in shooter skills are low.
If you roleplaying "bad shooter but good diplomate" in "shooter RPG" you avoiding gunfight, because you are roleplaying "bad shooter but good diplomate".
So you can avoid gunfight, almost no difference if you hasn't high numbers in shooting skills. Only what you have your numbers in case of RPG and you has your own fantasy in SHOOTER RPG .
The only disadvantage of the Shooter RPG is that to play the role of a bad shooter in the gunfight, you need to miss by yourself or shoot in the enemy's torso.
If you roleplaying "bad shooter but good diplomate" in "pure RPG" you avoiding gunfight, because your numbers in shooter skills are low.
If you roleplaying "bad shooter but good diplomate" in "shooter RPG" you avoiding gunfight, because you are roleplaying "bad shooter but good diplomate".
So you can avoid gunfight, almost no difference if you hasn't high numbers in shooting skills. Only what you have your numbers in case of RPG and you has your own fantasy in SHOOTER RPG .
The only disadvantage of the Shooter RPG is that to play the role of a bad shooter in the gunfight, you need to miss by yourself or shoot in the enemy's torso.
You say that as if playing a bad shooter = playing a good diplomate who avoid combats.
You can play a bad shooter who don't avoid combat, or a bad diplomat who tries to avoid combats (Fallout 2 low intelligence run is hilarious actually).
The problem with not getting the mechanics right now, is that we are all hoping the game is successful enough to become a franchise. Franchises very rarely significantly change how combat mechanics work, and of the ones that do almost zero change it for the more realistic.
In the case of burst, and full auto fire, every single bullet that hits should do the same amount of damage as if it were fired from a single shot weapon. I hate it when games nerf bullet damage from burst fire for the sake of balance. That's not how shit works. If you are that worried about it, don't let players get their hands on those weapons until much later in the game. Assault rifles are bloody devastating weapons, so are SMG's, they should be treated as such. Note, this does not mean handguns and single fire weapons are not devastating as well, this just illustrated why the idea of Bullet Sponges and "leveling health/damage increase" are garbage and should be avoided.
I very much expect to see multiple games, including some sort of semi-persistent multiplayer (think "Neverwinter Nights 2") out of CP2077. BUT if the combat mechanics stay as they are now don't expect to see much interest from the role play community. And let's face it, the shooter community is incredibly fickle, most of them will move on to the "next big thing" as soon as it's released. So if CDPR wants a sustainable longer term player base for multiplayer they need an RPG style combat option.
In the case of burst, and full auto fire, every single bullet that hits should do the same amount of damage as if it were fired from a single shot weapon. I hate it when games nerf bullet damage from burst fire for the sake of balance. That's not how shit works. If you are that worried about it, don't let players get their hands on those weapons until much later in the game. Assault rifles are bloody devastating weapons, so are SMG's, they should be treated as such. Note, this does not mean handguns and single fire weapons are not devastating as well, this just illustrated why the idea of Bullet Sponges and "leveling health/damage increase" are garbage and should be avoided.
For the 97th time ... "balance" is totally and completely irreverent in a game that's not centered around PvP.
There's no need to throw waves of NPCs at players, and in fact this sort of thing highlights the "game" and "Hollywood" aspects of gameplay. Any number of current, and future, titles exist with exactly the same formula. If CDPR wants CP2077 to stand out from the crowd they can't follow the crowd.
Actually the number of NPC isn't the problem from a C2020 perspective, the problem is that normally you don't do mercenary jobs alone in C2020 which implies gunfights against numerous enemies, or else you are a legendary mercenary from the start.
I'm thinking of ArmA, specifically, going all the way back to the Operation: Flashpoint days. It doesn't require a "delay of game" mechanic, it would simply mean losing progress and having to go back and be even more careful. Bubble, rinse, repeat until one either quits out of frustration or falls in love with simulations. I doubt that would appeal to people who like RPGs (unless they also liked sims).
Considering the tactical options used in turn-based or real-time with pause, it would be cool to have some of those options available. I would love something like the ability to pause and use a limited "tactics mode" during combat. That's something I hope will be part of it, as it would be much more rewarding than having companions be scripted or just there for mostly show. I'd also appreciate something like the Dragon Age ability synergy.
Excuse me ... but you don't think needing 5-15 bullets to drop an unarmored opponent isn't "obnoxiously spongy"?
What would you consider "obnoxiously spongy" then?
Naw. It wasn't slow enough to bug me, though I'd personally want it to be faster. What do I consider obnoxiously spongy? Fallout 4 on anything other than Adept difficulty. Standing at point-blank range, unloading my entire 50 round clip into a target, and having it lose only 1/3rd of its health. Or something like the boss fights and legendary hunts in FarCry Primal (which was such a good game, otherwise.)
You say that like sim games aren't games. I think it could work with an RPG, because it already does for CP2020. If combat is lethal you are either strongly encouraged to seek less death-injecting solutions or try to minimize the risk as much as possible by wearing armor, having good position, weapon, numerical advantage, illegal combat mods, etc.
I think the fear of dying could be a really good thing, because it would pressure the player to think in other ways than just "let's kill everything in sight". Which is a perfect situation for an RPG as, unlike a mere shooter, it should give you the means for achieving your ends without having to go into battle every single time.
Oh -- simulations are still games, but they're not RPGs at heart. They're an attempt to immerse players in very realistic situations. (Granted, no simulation I've ever played compares with anything I've ever done in real life, but some of them get the "sense of it" right.) In the end, they're not about creatively playing a role and having adventures, they're about experiencing something, learning from mistakes, and increasing precision and efficiency.
Let's face it, if anyone in real life tried to get away with 10% of what "heroes" in RPGs get away with...most would be arrested or dead within seconds. An RPG is a departure from reality, and the mechanics, combat included, generally respect that. Translating that to a real-time system requires there to be a bit more elbow-room for players to assess the situation before they're flattened. That means at least a little spongyness, or options for increased difficulty.
The rest of it, I agree with wholeheartedly, and I'm pretty convinced there will be a lot of that in the game. Fear of dying is always a large motivator. I don't think that the non-violent options will be quite so direct, though. I imagine the situations will be rather involved and wind up costing V something no matter which way it goes.
And that's, in my opinion, the real problem: instead of making games, developers focus on making stories and end up detaching the core gameplay from the story as a result...
It also doesn't mean it's impossible to achieve. It is just very hard to do. Probably harder than hand-crafting everything, which comes down merely having resources to do that. But the real obstacle are the people. Too many people who can't grasp the concept itself, nevermind embracing it or trying to implement it.
Couldn't agree more! However, when trying to pull this off using a computer system, it's very easy to overreach and wind up with an unmanageable mess. I just glance at a random flow-chart for just one section of Detroit, then imagine trying to customize those options to deal with player-generated characters, exclusive options based on character class, backgrounds, skills and abilities...
Strong narrative requires a level of linearity. It's almost impossible to craft a story with strong dramatic action and a clean arc if everything is up to "player choice". So, a great balance would be to ease back on the story elements. Leave much of it unspoken (except for key scenes if the player takes that route). Instead, focus on the web of interconnected events that may or may not occur depending on the player's choices. Then, dive into those options and be sure that every pathway offers a unique set of experiences catered to a specific role. Therefore, if I choose to play as a warrior, I'll be fighting my way to outright war and will take part in the "great battle of our time" to resolve the endgame. If I choose to play as a thief, I'll be involved in intrigue and subterfuge, gathering intel, building or destroying key bridges over time, and may wind up resolving the endgame without the war ever beginning.
For that, I think it's far more important for a game to be built around a system of interconnected mechanics that compliment each other, rather than a specific hierarchy of mechanics that help to drive the story arc to a predetermined conclusion. More like Minecraft rather than the latest Dungeons & Dragons. A series of mechanics that don't have an "early game / late game" setup, per say. Nor even a thing you're supposed to do first. Nor a specific goal you're trying to reach. But all of the individual pieces work with each other every which way. If an RPG system could be built around that, it would allow for non-linear scenarios to be easily crafted on top of it.
(Not sure if I did a fantastic job of presenting that idea, but I'm borrowing time at the moment. )
I think CP 2077 will make strides in this direction, but I also think that CDPR is playing to its strengths with the game, and that means carefully crafted story arcs. I don't think it will replace tabletop RPGs. I don't think it will really compare to tabletop RPGs. I don't think it's trying to. I think it's trying to be a mind-blowing CRPG.
..."balance" is totally and completely irreverent in a game that's not centered around PvP.
There's no need to throw waves of NPCs at players, and in fact this sort of thing highlights the "game" and "Hollywood" aspects of gameplay. Any number of current, and future, titles exist with exactly the same formula. If CDPR wants CP2077 to stand out from the crowd they can't follow the crowd.
I'll argue this one. I don't think that balance issues are as prevalent in single-player games as they are in multiplayer, but they still matter a great deal. (I'm trying to work out whether you meant "irrelevant" or "irreverent"...and either one is interesting. Let me see if I can answer both at the same time...)
The game mechanics need to respect the player's choices, and it's kind of a plague in a lot of games that things start to get frustrating and "cheap" if players choose certain options over others. Like choosing an obscure skill (the ability to speak to animals, lore about a specific region, etc.) that can make the game borderline impossible to play because the mechanics aren't properly balanced for players to focus on that. Directly relating to what we're on about here -- choosing, say, pistol and hand-to-hand as my primary combat abilities may leave me pulling my hair out halfway through a game. It wasn't balanced for that combination of choices, and it doesn't respect my desired role. So...why did it bloody offer it!?
I get what Wisdom is saying there. I also agree with your point about the "waves of nameless enemies" basically there as filler or experience deposits. (Diablo was "new" a long time ago.) I'm not too worried about it, though. TW3 presented very few random combat encounters that felt pointless or overdone. No reason to believe they didn't use the same sort of approach in CP (or better). I suspect that the level we watched was specifically built or modified to showcase stuff in the demo.
You could say that. Neo Scavenger is a very good example, in my opinion; skills there are very useful (you can even take negavite traits that hugely impact your playstyle) and you perform actions by having to actually interact with the environment (gathering objects, interacting with them, crafting, etc.). Some of stuff is fixed, but a lot of the content is randomly generated, and encounters can go in various ways. Some of them ending up literally in cavemen-like level and style in terms of gear or execution, respectively.
The "very basic (or general) set of rules" you mention is what's at the core of AI research. To expect a game developer to crack the nut thousands of reasearchers worldwide have been working on for decades is a bit much don't you think?
The problem is not the AI. It's the tools. More precisely - what kind of tools developers give to a player that allow them to accomplish their objective. "Give me the codes to X" is general enough task to not constrain a player's creativity, provided (s)he has enough tools to approach the situation from various angles.
Let's take a look at a "simple" example. There's a glass on a table the character can pick up. [...] And you expect a game developer to be able to create a game that will even fit on a PC, much less a console, and run at a reasonable speed when virtually everything in a game can be acted on? Much less track the thousands of ways an glass can be used.
"Thousands of ways an glass can be used"? - Harthwain starts counting on his fingers - As a container. As a throwable. As a weapon (if you break it and show it into somebody). As a weapon (if you take big and sharp enough pieces). As a tool (to cut something with it)... and... That's it? Or at least I can't think of anything else that'd be gameplay-releveant.
Neo Scavenger managed to do it pretty well and it was made by a single person, if I am not mistaken. So I imagine that with more resources (people, time) you could implement a lot more actions that could then work inside of the game on their own.
Thats called action RPG. Yes when player can directly aiming/shoot without any stats or roll dice required, it removes HUGE part of RPG gameplay, but all that process from stat spec to rolling dices for initiative/aim/etc is only possible form of realization actual process of aiming/shooting. And if the videogame can make decent gunplay or melee combat, there is no need to make a system with stats and such. Thats my point.
Well, you are not entirely right. If you add a skill that impacts recoil and sway it's possible to make stats' (and the level of each) very important part of the [combat] experience, which is very RPG-like. And you can do all this while still keeping the game in FPS mode with real-time, where you can manually try to aim with your mouse.
Let's face it, if anyone in real life tried to get away with 10% of what "heroes" in RPGs get away with...most would be arrested or dead within seconds. An RPG is a departure from reality, and the mechanics, combat included, generally respect that.
Translating that to a real-time system requires there to be a bit more elbow-room for players to assess the situation before they're flattened. That means at least a little spongyness, or options for increased difficulty.
I disagree with that assessment. It's possible to create a system where combat can be deadly, while still offering player some "elbow-room", as you call it. The question is in the level of it.
I think CP 2077 will make strides in this direction, but I also think that CDPR is playing to its strengths with the game, and that means carefully crafted story arcs. I don't think it will replace tabletop RPGs. I don't think it will really compare to tabletop RPGs. I don't think it's trying to. I think it's trying to be a mind-blowing CRPG.
Agreed. This is the main reason why I am very wary of CP77. I am sure it will be a good game and many people will end up liking it, but I have my doubts it will be a game for me. Still, I can be proven wrong as there is still time for CDPR to show something really cool in terms of cRPGing.
Yeah, That's j sawyers perspective - which is his perspective and enough of an issue he had to post about it. He also did a Sawyer difficulty mod for New Vegas. I played it.
Not everyone agrees and for sure he doesn't invalidate other people's opinions because he's Sawyer.
Balancing in SP is really different than MP and PvP - and also, yes, much less relevant. Your aim isn't fairness but fun. Geralt wasn't balanced, har de har har - but he was generally fun.
Until mid 20s, when he was overpowered. He was always overpowered compared to nearly every other character - but it was still fun.
That's much much simpler to "balance" than an MP and PvP environment.
Yeah, it is different. And games with different goals are balanced differently (i.e. Geralt vs. PoE party). The "fun" there is the key word; not every build need to be equally balanced in power and applicability, but every build should carry its weight during the game.
Also Swen Vincke (of Larian) has had the idea that sometimes it is just plain fun to find exploits in the system and go wild with it. And that is also true (e.g. the level of relevancy balancing has to the experience).
But neither of those refute the point that balance is not irrelevant in a single player game.
I'll argue this one. I don't think that balance issues are as prevalent in single-player games as they are in multiplayer, but they still matter a great deal. (I'm trying to work out whether you meant "irrelevant" or "irreverent"...and either one is interesting. Let me see if I can answer both at the same time...)
I would argue that "balance" is another of those misunderstood terms among players and devs.
Once it is clear that anyones meaning of 'balance' is just a set of preferences, a way of doing things, then the general notion of there being some kind of balance just doesn't exist. Balance tend to be just another bs way to talk about something that 'had to be changed' from one thing into something else.
Of course we are: cyberware, super-abilities, futuristic armors, weapons, and mods, and a GM to manage things and keep everything fun. Same as any other RPG. Combat may be more punishing in CP than in other RPGs, but the core of the game is still doing extremely dangerous things and being rewarded for it.
Right there, it means that reality is out the window and realism comes at a premium. Rather, the games are built with immersive but wholly unrealistic systems to encourage players to take "stupid" risks. For fun.
I disagree with that assessment. It's possible to create a system where combat can be deadly, while still offering player some "elbow-room", as you call it. The question is in the level of it.
Sure, but I don't think it would be enjoyable for most players if it was pushed all the way to simulation levels of realism. I'm not saying there is no market for such a game, I'm saying it would simply not appeal to a wide demographic.
I'll hit the point I made earlier in more detail. If my game is so hardcore that bullets can be one-shot kills, then that's the whole combat system right there. You have ArmA. If I suit up in heavy, ballistic armor in ArmA, a single round from a high-powered, armor-piercing rifle will still drop me in a single shot. The games contain a wounding system that lets you play on with massive wobble added to your aim and decreased movement speed, etc. That's the combat system from beginning to end. The player needs to become better, not the character.
Now, if I add armor that can stop a high-powered, AP round...I'm essentially invincible except for key situations...where I'll simply be killed outright by explosives or something. There really aren't any increments that can be applied to reflect more survivability in combat, or those increments would be so middling as to be pointless. Once I have this magical, top-tier armor, I can effectively ignore all the low-caliber stuff. There goes the tension. Plus, if something is able to kill me, it will still do so in one or two hits. That would be really wonky balance, even for a sim.
So, too much realism would be a detriment to RPG combat. In order to balance it and make characters noticeably versatile and unique in combat, there need to be mechanics that channel things into noticeably different experiences (based upon role). So: we'll give warriors more HP, thieves can deal tremendous damage in certain situations, clerics can magically heal, etc. Viola, we're getting into buffers for things like health, armor class, and special rules that are becoming much more of a game than a simulation.
That's the "level of spongy-ness" I was referring to. It's the damage buffering that separates one class from another and allows more balance into the gameplay. True, it can be balanced more harshly (and that's what difficulty settings usually try to do), but there will always be some level of sponge unless the game goes for full-on realism.
Agreed. This is the main reason why I am very wary of CP77. I am sure it will be a good game and many people will end up liking it, but I have my doubts it will be a game for me. Still, I can be proven wrong as there is still time for CDPR to show something really cool in terms of cRPGing.
Actually, I enjoyed thinking through the irrelevant / irreverent thing. I get really annoyed when a game takes a lovely experience, then starts changing the rules all of a sudden for a boss fight or something. But yeah, it's far more damaging for MP.
I would argue that "balance" is another of those misunderstood terms among players and devs.
Once it is clear that anyones meaning of 'balance' is just a set of preferences, a way of doing things, then the general notion of there being some kind of balance just doesn't exist. Balance tend to be just another bs way to talk about something that 'had to be changed' from one thing into something else.
While I agree that the nitpicking can get ridiculous as time goes on, there are definitely glaring balance issues or just plain wonky design at times. My favorite was Pool of Radiance remake (the 3D one around 2000). The game specifically gives the player information that slimes are especially susceptible to flame. You fight some slimes, but when you reach the end of the section, the boss fight is...you may have guessed it...a group of "flame-resistant slimes".
What the @#!$%.
Other things of note are things like weapons or abilities that let you spam / cheese your way through most of a game, getting gear early on that makes almost everything else you'll ever find obsolete, or game mechanics that can be abused to quickly farm money or experience. Things like that are purely balance issues.
Not in a well-run Cpunk game, frankly. That means - soon- you will be dead.
In 2020, you want to avoid doing extremely dangerous things and still get rewarded for them.
Because no Fate Points, no resurrection scrolls, TT only if you can afford it and -if- they make their rolls...run correctly, 2020 is really lethal and doing extremely dangerous things gets you dead.
Unless your Ref goes to unfair lengths not to "reward" you for risks.
Part of what made 2020 different in the late 80s was that it wasn't an "adventure" game in the RPG sense. As the FNFF sections says, "We'll teach you how to win every firefight ( you only get to lose once)."
Not in a well-run Cpunk game, frankly. That means - soon- you will be dead.
In 2020, you want to avoid doing extremely dangerous things and still get rewarded for them.
Because no Fate Points, no resurrection scrolls, TT only if you can afford it and -if- they make their rolls...run correctly, 2020 is really lethal and doing extremely dangerous things gets you dead.
Unless your Ref goes to unfair lengths not to "reward" you for risks.
Part of what made 2020 different in the late 80s was that it wasn't an "adventure" game in the RPG sense. As the FNFF sections says, "We'll teach you how to win every firefight ( you only get to lose once)."
Sure, but I'm not comparing Cyberpunk to other RPGs; I'm comparing RPGs to real life. In real life, taking a job with a criminal organization or shady mega-corporation as a means of making income would be considered pretty dangerous. Arming yourself and trying to covertly break into a high security area on an espionage mission would be a dangerous thing to do. Packing a bag and heading out on foot through a wilderness area on a 400 mile journey would fall under the category of quite dangerous. And I think heading toward any form of warzone or area known for violence would simply have to be called dangerous.
In an RPG, however, players can safely engage in these things for fun -- then play the role of a character in a situation that has, at least to some extent, been molded to their skills and abilities for the sake of creating an exciting and rewarding challenge that they have a fair chance of succeeding at. Combat follows that standard, too, even if it's brutal. All those stats are meant to balance out the challenge or outright project that the character is not ready for such a challenge yet.
That's what I mean by "buffers" -- whereas in a simulation, there aren't really any buffers or signs that you're ready or not ready for a given challenge. It's more about practice and personal experience with clean, linear mechanics that remain constant throughout. Not too much "player character" work going on. The simulation doesn't care what your "class" is.
Yeah, only you said the core of the game "is still doing extremely dangerous things and being rewarded for it. "
And in Cyberpunk, it's not. I am comparing it to real life. That's the point. FNFF and 2020 are fairly realistic in terms of risk and damage.
And so in 2020, you are doing dangerous things as safely as you can - like people in real life do.
And your characters, at least in 2020 stock, aren't really ready for extremely dangerous things, any more than you are in real life. Even with training and gear.
That's why the mechanics being faithful to 2020 is important to those of us who liked playing Cyberpunk because it gave that this-could-happen edge to the playing.
In 2020, you would be nuts to engage 5 men in a gunfight. As in real life. In 2020, you can die to a loser armed with a 9mm, even if you're a veteran Cop. As in real life.
That's why the core of the game is not doing extremely dangerous things and being rewarded for it. Because you'll die - like real life.
