Mechanical Faithfulness to Cyberpunk 2020...

+
I mean the OP appears to be about combat and gear mechanics and differences between the PnP and what we saw in the demo.

Well, for example "level locked" doesn't existe in Cyberpunk 2020, so it's as much a lore thing than a mechanic one.
 
I think he meant how actual gameplay sometimes contradict Cyberpunk 2020 lore, not just mechanics.
It's a bit of both actually.

But in case implementing the mechanics of PnP isn't possible I'd settle for as little as achieving the similar result, even if would have to be done by different means. For example: how the injury system works? Is there even an injury/wound system in place? Or is it replaced by "You will only die if you run out of hitpoints on your health bar. There are no intermediate states between being alive and being dead"? Because I'd rather have ARMA's injury system over DOOM's.
 
Well, for example "level locked" doesn't existe in Cyberpunk 2020, so it's as much a lore thing than a mechanic one.
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.
 
Because I'd rather have ARMA's injury system over DOOM's.

I'm curious to see how the game would play with this injury system. I see alot of players quitting at the beginning. I would love it by the way.

Still if you play DOOM in the higher difficulty it's "the same" has ARMA or worst...
 
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.

This sounds all too familiar from a certain other title.

And incidentally, something I feared would happen a few years ago already (among certain other things). Pretty Nostradamus of me, if I say so myself. :cool:
 
Last edited:
That is to them to decide what part is worth and/or possible.
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.
Just imagine if From Software would say before game out "What if every dumb creep would kill you with a few stabs, guys? Would you play this game?".

Sure, for linear gameplay like DS leveling system is fine. Just because you don't even see difference most of the time. But for open world it would be disaster, just like it was with TW3.
 
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.

Well. Corp maggots are highly skilled, higly enhanced and highly motivated operators. They are at the top of the food chain.
A street kid with 9mm can try take on some Delta Force or Spetsnaz guys, he'll probably die. But in a video game, the only way to simulate that is to give them a lot of HPs, armor and damage. Because they are bots. And bot's can't fight.
Even in PnP. A freshly created character taking on Morgan Blackhand is a bad idea, for the character. Sure. Good rolls happen. But statistically. He/she's dead.
 
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.
YES YES AND AGAIN YES!

I really hope they'll realise that levels and stats can be lame. They still have plenty of time to fix this, they cannot claim their aim for immersion and put level scale loot everywhere with common/uncommon/EPIC (WTF?) weapons/clothing.
 
The truth is that people don't really know what they want.

This is true. Most people don't (necessarily). It's usually based on prejudice and ignorance. And I'm not saying that as a slight towards those people, often they simply lack the experience and have formed their points of view based on their interpretation of what others have told them or seeing a clip of something... and that's pretty normal occurence (even among "experienced" people).

That's why I think the mechanical side should push the envelope towards something less familiar pretty hard inspite of "general" opinion tending be against it. More often than not I've seen people divert their opinions after trying something they've not tried previously (if the design is well done for what it tries to achieve).
 
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? (How RPG combat should look? Like VATS from Fallout?)

Especially that we saw 6 different stats, and still we don't know how combat use it. Demo didn't focuset on this aspect, nor on 5 different resistance stats. (all of them are RP mechanics). This part is hidden in game mechanics.

We also still don't saw skill tree. How lvl systems works, etc.

From demo we know that choices are big part of missions (another RP element), whole combat from second part of demo can be avoided.

It's obvious some parts of combat like "accuracy" will be simulatet by player skill, not by statistics, cause again, it's action RPG, not clasic RPG, with isometric view or so, where stats like this must be simulatet by game because of mechanics restrictions.
 
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.

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 doing (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.
 
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 ?
 
Top Bottom