I think he meant how actual gameplay sometimes contradict Cyberpunk 2020 lore, not just mechanics.
Opinions are like assholes. They're all full of shit.Sure it is. "I like the way combat looked in the demo" Is an opinion.
I mean the OP appears to be about combat and gear mechanics and differences between the PnP and what we saw in the demo.I think he meant how actual gameplay sometimes contradict Cyberpunk 2020 lore, not just mechanics.
I mean the OP appears to be about combat and gear mechanics and differences between the PnP and what we saw in the demo.
It's a bit of both actually.I think he meant how actual gameplay sometimes contradict Cyberpunk 2020 lore, not just mechanics.
And there's no evidence of level locked gear in the demo either, as I said earlier. The weapons and armor have stats and DPS and PNT, but not levels that I could see.Well, for example "level locked" doesn't existe in Cyberpunk 2020, so it's as much a lore thing than a mechanic one.
Because I'd rather have ARMA's injury system over DOOM's.
Then I saw the demo myself (feel free to look up my analysis of it) and my heart sank.
Yep, they adapted the setting and tossed the rest out the window.
The truth is that people don't really know what they want. Remember when first Dark Souls came out on PC? No one really expected their mechanics.That is to them to decide what part is worth and/or possible.
Who said that it should be isometric to fulfill CP2020 mechanics? It is not. It shouldn't be like Fallout too.
Here we generally talk about leveling system because it will affect game experience in wrong way — because you should be able to kill someone in the game regardless to its level. Not only because it fulfill CP2020 mechanics, but also because it is generally realistic — the main feature that PnP game present.
Again. Not being able to kill some corp maggots because you haven't done enough quests yet — IS NOT realistic. Thug is a thug regardless to its level too.
YES YES AND AGAIN YES!Levels themselves aren't an issue ( except for breaking Immersion), but how it works in different type of game.
Let's say you want to design a 10 hour long mostly linear rpg.
You have player A who does everything there is in the game and ends up with level 10 .
And player B who only does the main story/minimum and ends up as level 6.
And with each level, of player or equipment, all base stats improve.
It's much easier to balance the game ( and all systems, like economy, encounters, etc) for both, as there is not really that great difference between overall "character power" ( for lack of better world). So you don't really need to come up with balancing counterparts for player progression like: "gate equipment", level scale opponents, etc.
That's why similar vertical progression from Witcher III, actually worked in Witcher 1 and 2...they were far smaller, shorter games.
But when you have an open world game of massive scale ( like this), in quantity of content, what you end up with:
Poor design for Player character:
Player stats hyperinflate faster than Venezuelan currency, due to auto increase on every level up and abundance of passive buffs ( and open world games have many levels)
Wrong Solution: Level scale enemies.
Result: Pointless character progression ( as everything is tied to you) and nonsensical encounters (half naked bandits as hitpoint sponges)
Instead:
Let player base stats remain the same throughout the game, unless you use cyber enhancements ( that prevents you from gaining something else, as trade off)
Design progression around what player can do instead of buffing his/her stats. Your superfast/agile cyberninja still has to be careful and smart in every encounter, as the world feels dangerous from start to finish.
Counter player progression with Strong enemy and encounter design: Better AI, better equipment, higher numbers of opponents, more "difficult" environment ( from security, reinforcements, alarm, surveilance, etc).
Poor design for equipment
Like the player, gear stats increased based on level..
Result: Broken economy, as player amasses and sells too much useless gear. Gameplay is less tactical/interesting as only DPS/Damage reduction really matters.
Wrong Fix: Level gate Equipment ( Nonsensical and counter intuitive). Level scale loot drops ( Makes exploration less rewarding). Nonsensical bartering rates and artificial expenses to try and fix economy ( but never actually works, in a game of this size).
Instead:
Less quantity, but more handplaced loot/gear, appropriate to risk(danger)/reward.
Divide gear into different fundamental categories, so each provides tactical advantage in certain situation.
Gear with better stats are less customizable, so player has more options.
Top tier gear is more specialized, rare and expensive.
Use grid and encumbrance system to prevent hoarding ( and broken economy), upp the quest rewards so money you gain actually feels valuable.
As a whole: player/gear progression is more rewarding in how much it offers when it comes to experimentation of different playstyles, abilities and skills, and customizing/synergizing your equipment for it, than watching your base stats hyperinflate throughout the game.
I think, in general, the main culprit is in developers seeing games like Diablo or Borderlands (or many MMO's), which are designed to addict the player to grind and power gaming, and not understanding that this design is completely incompatible with single player, narrative driven, immersive rpgs ( where gameplay rules have to feel derived from the actual setting).
Virtually anyone I know that played the game agree that Witcher III would've been better without levels of any kind in the game, and more horizontal progression system on both ends...CDPR, please don't repeat the same mistake again.
The truth is that people don't really know what they want.
I read this topic and can someone explain me what is "RPG combat", and why dynamic combat like in demo where player skill is importand, isn't "RPG" enough, in action RPG game?
....
From demo we know that choices are big part of missions (another RP element), whole combat from second part of demo can be avoided.
Completely unrelated question, since i know you like the Hbo show Deadwood, do you like The Wire ?In a nutshell. It's the characterbuilds effect on the characters combat proficiency over the players own skill -- whether it is accuracy and recoil (etc) distortions in realtime or something like (not exactly like, though) what VATS was (before Fallout 4). There's none of that visible in the demo, just Doom/Bulletstorm action.
Being able to avoid combat does not make combat better. It shouldn't be something the palyer "needs" to avoid to have fun in an RPG, it should be as viable a choice of getting entertainment as the avoidance routes within the confines of the game being an RPG (especially when the game is specifically advertised as such).
As said, in a nutshell.
Completely unrelated question, since i know you like the Hbo show Deadwood, do you like The Wire ?
Have you watched Carnivale ?I haven't watched it yet, but I've heard good things about it so I will. In time.
Have you watched Carnivale ?
the first season was legitYears ago, yes. But I don't remember if I watched it all the way to the end.
the first season was legit