My biggest bother of this game [Spoilers]

[Guest 3847602]

Try PLAYING it....

The Video is 1/3 to 1/2 the way through the main quest after the mission on the ice planet and encountering Mama. This isnt after the prologue. This isnt after Eden Prime.

It is after the prologue, first visit to the Citadel, just before Shepard became a Spectre. Absolutely nothing to do with Noveria (which is presumably the ice planet you keep referring to).
I could continue into TW3, but I won't since this is going nowhere. Toodles!

 

[Riven-Twain]

Moderator: Back on topic, please.

 

[Restlessdingo32]

In an action based fiction, willing suspension of disbelief involves people even engaging at all. Like wise a horror movie. Willing suspension of disbelief isnt only for fantasy fiction.

I'll reiterate suspension of disbelief has nothing to do with the criticism.

And you said you are in fact rejecting the whole story concept.

I said I was questioning the entire foundation of the game narrative. This was meant to question the execution of that foundation. I could see how it could be confusing and perhaps it should have been worded better. A very small number of the reasons why were included right after that statement. Funnily enough, in the post where we got stuck on suspension of disbelief I specifically clarified what I was or was not criticizing.

To me the lead up to the Heist featured some cheesy dialogue, tried way too hard to drive home the themes it was attempting to explore and didn't offer enough contrast among the options presented in the flavor choices along the way. The end result is no matter what character you make it creates the sense you are supposed to agree with Jackie when he loses his mind over drink names, a blaze of glory, etc. You're supposed to say "yes sir" when Dex tells you to jump. We know with absolute certainty, based on hindsight, the job is supposed to go bad and V ends up completely screwed.

I'd point out that last one is different from those first two. That last one is an event occuring the player is involved with and, due to forces beyond their control, it goes badly. This would be those periods where the narrative must take command to progress itself. Those first two are hijacking the persona of the player character and saying "this is how your V thinks". That doesn't belong in a game with a player generated player character. Those moments, or choices, should have the player in the driver seat when they appear.

Now sure, you do have a "choice" when those events play out. Unfortunately there is almost zero contrast built into the options attached to those choices. Tell me, what the hell is the point of providing three options if they all functionally mean the same thing? At the very least meanings along similar lines. They couldn't at least build suitable contrast into those options and put that work on voice-overs, animations, etc. to functional use? As it was included it serves no purpose. It's wasted time and resources. This is what happens when you have to rush because your leadership is dysfunctional. Things slip through the cracks, get gutted or otherwise end up as a shadow of what they could be.

A more simple way to say this is the Heist going poorly is fine. The hijacking of the character persona is not. V accepting the job would have been far better if it were presented in a way where you could challenge what the game was trying to drive home. Present the themes. Don't force them upon the player. It's unnecessary to do so to get the point across. It's not the only example where this was done either.

The endings are probably a better example of the above. The decision you're presented plays the ambiguity card. The results omit choices the player should have been able to decide upon independently to drive home themes the game had already sufficiently covered well beforehand. It was an innappropriate place to incorporate any ambiguity if those themes were going to be incorporated as player world views and outlooks. It was arguably lame the way it coupled so many "choices" into a single decision.

this is infact rejecting the premise. If cdprojekt says hey i have a game, it all starts when a young hungry group of mercs tries to rob a megacorporation, and then you say thats dumb no one would ever do that, write a new story You are rejectng the premise.

I didn't say robbing Arasaka was dumb. I said the way it goes down is dumb. There is a difference. It was a little silly me to waltz right in there, no questions asked, when your fixer teleported out of nowhere with such swiftness it even manages to rival NCPD, drops a "let's retire" level job on V and Jackie specifically and the doll providing the BD footage asks you to fuck over that fixer. All of those elements could have easily been done any number of other ways without creating these type of "what the hell?" moments and preserving everything else.

We got even more what the hell moments because the conversation with Evelyn about cutting out Dex is pointless and goes nowhere. The shop talk with Dex about your cut is pointless and goes nowhere. The Maelstrom vs Militech part of the spider bot quest doesn't really maintain a respectable presence throughout the game. Adam Smasher gets hyped as a super cyborg villain all game and only has a single direct interaction with V. It goes down via him jumping out of a bush from nowhere and emotionally sabotaging the player. Clearly showing Smasher's teleportation rivals both NCPD and Dex.

Forgive me but you can feel this all went splendidly and is the pinnacle of epic RPG storytelling and execution. You're welcome to that opinion. I'd probably think you have low standards though.

This is in fact not an unrealistic premise, big heists happen periodically, some few even get away with it. But i accept that to you, its unnatural, however if you are not willing to accept thats your starting point, then it will be impossible for you to enjoy this work of fiction. You have to agree to go along with a story(to engage with it). If i can't believe a rich guy would ever train a team of super heroes, there is no point in reading an Xmen comic, And giving critiques on that basis, is kind of pointless. because the premise is not an error, a mistake, or a mishandling. You are just telling people you have no interest in the thing they want to make, not how to improve it, Or flaws.

See above.

And i wasnt debating whether there is foreshadowing that something could go wrong in or around the heist, clearly they were seeding numerous possible problems. (in any heist thats the main drama) I was saying, Dex shows no direct signs he would murder you if things dont go wrong. I'm not saying its impossible, but rather there is no evidence, such that no one would reasonably attempt to work with him for tens of millions of dollars.

There was no concrete, 100% confirmed evidence. There was a wealth of circumstantial evidence. At the very least there was a ton of information available suggesting the job was sketchy beyond belief and probably a bad idea. What didn't make the cut is the ability to select options to indicate your V recognized it.

 

[Ayinde_Palmer]

I'll reiterate suspension of disbelief has nothing to do with the criticism.

I said I was questioning the entire foundation of the game narrative. This was meant to question the execution of that foundation. I could see how it could be confusing and perhaps it should have been worded better. A very small number of the reasons why were included right after that statement. Funnily enough, in the post where we got stuck on suspension of disbelief I specifically clarified what I was or was not criticizing.

To me the lead up to the Heist featured some cheesy dialogue, tried way too hard to drive home the themes it was attempting to explore and didn't offer enough contrast among the options presented in the flavor choices along the way. The end result is no matter what character you make it creates the sense you are supposed to agree with Jackie when he loses his mind over drink names, a blaze of glory, etc. You're supposed to say "yes sir" when Dex tells you to jump. We know with absolute certainty, based on hindsight, the job is supposed to go bad and V ends up completely screwed.

I'd point out that last one is different from those first two. That last one is an event occuring the player is involved with and, due to forces beyond their control, it goes badly. This would be those periods where the narrative must take command to progress itself. Those first two are hijacking the persona of the player character and saying "this is how your V thinks". That doesn't belong in a game with a player generated player character. Those moments, or choices, should have the player in the driver seat when they appear.

Now sure, you do have a "choice" when those events play out. Unfortunately there is almost zero contrast built into the options attached to those choices. Tell me, what the hell is the point of providing three options if they all functionally mean the same thing? At the very least meanings along similar lines. They couldn't at least build suitable contrast into those options and put that work on voice-overs, animations, etc. to functional use? As it was included it serves no purpose. It's wasted time and resources. This is what happens when you have to rush because your leadership is dysfunctional. Things slip through the cracks, get gutted or otherwise end up as a shadow of what they could be.

A more simple way to say this is the Heist going poorly is fine. The hijacking of the character persona is not. V accepting the job would have been far better if it were presented in a way where you could challenge what the game was trying to drive home. Present the themes. Don't force them upon the player. It's unnecessary to do so to get the point across. It's not the only example where this was done either.

The endings are probably a better example of the above. The decision you're presented plays the ambiguity card. The results omit choices the player should have been able to decide upon independently to drive home themes the game had already sufficiently covered well beforehand. It was an innappropriate place to incorporate any ambiguity if those themes were going to be incorporated as player world views and outlooks. It was arguably lame the way it coupled so many "choices" into a single decision.

I didn't say robbing Arasaka was dumb. I said the way it goes down is dumb. There is a difference. It was a little silly me to waltz right in there, no questions asked, when your fixer teleported out of nowhere with such swiftness it even manages to rival NCPD, drops a "let's retire" level job on V and Jackie specifically and the doll providing the BD footage asks you to fuck over that fixer. All of those elements could have easily been done any number of other ways without creating these type of "what the hell?" moments and preserving everything else.

We got even more what the hell moments because the conversation with Evelyn about cutting out Dex is pointless and goes nowhere. The shop talk with Dex about your cut is pointless and goes nowhere. The Maelstrom vs Militech part of the spider bot quest doesn't really maintain a respectable presence throughout the game. Adam Smasher gets hyped as a super cyborg villain all game and only has a single direct interaction with V. It goes down via him jumping out of a bush from nowhere and emotionally sabotaging the player. Clearly showing Smasher's teleportation rivals both NCPD and Dex.

Forgive me but you can feel this all went splendidly and is the pinnacle of epic RPG storytelling and execution. You're welcome to that opinion. I'd probably think you have low standards though.

See above.

There was no concrete, 100% confirmed evidence. There was a wealth of circumstantial evidence. At the very least there was a ton of information available suggesting the job was sketchy beyond belief and probably a bad idea. What didn't make the cut is the ability to select options to indicate your V recognized it.

ok, I see what you are saying.

I will say that as you mentioned there are real options with Jackie to reject his ideaology. I think these were actually good examples of disagreement. You can say you think death is to steep a price. And you can be generally unexcited about dex. I do think those are adequate, especially since V is not saying most of this stuff. Jackie is giving his perspective and V can dismiss it. Not to the level of an "arguement" but arguments are very tricky, because they require a greater understanding of whatever the player is thinking.
Even if the player feels hesitant about the heist, the reasons why, or even the tone and style of the of the complaint matters. So realistically, having the bigger fight, usually doesn't go well for me, generally taking me out it.

For example there is a whole part of the heist, where V can express friction and annoyance with Jackie's seeming naivete. This seems targeted at player's like yourself, who feel the mission is poorly executed, Jackie is too optimistic, and a general unease about things. But its not how I would have done it, the tone seems to sharp, and directed at Jackie himself(not the plan) and it offers no solutions. Just feels like V is attacking Jackie for being his normal self, and is salty about things V already agreed to. Its somewhat avoidable, but involves knowing ahead of time, and choosing to let time run out.

Any how my point is, there are limits to a writer being able to predict what a player wants to say. So sometimes the vague disapproval or one line rejections are better than a more detailed dialogue in terms of being true to the player's vision of V. And mostly, I think they usually find a good balance. This is why when they do go too far with a specific V dialog, or fail to address the elephant in the room, its more noticeable.

I do think they may have been able to better write/predict a few thoughts the player might have, and give them a better one liner to express the player's opinion. V could make a comment to Jackie that he doesn't trust any of them, andV will do the heist but be ready for it to go south. They also could add slightly more complexity to major story/charachter beats decision trees. Where if you say like option 3, you have 3 options that elaborate on that. There is some dialogue like that, but its mostly just one teir of response.

That said, in all honesty this is extremely high level stuff and generally outside of what writers generally do. They usually make up characters, not try to guide/collaborate with players to create a cohesive narrative and do it without ever directly interacting with them.
To me this game is far, far above other attempts, which are usually super exxagerated (angel option, devil option, idontcare option) or they don't bother trying to express the player character motive at all. Yea, it takes me out of it a bit when they get my V wrong, but they have to come up with many different people's V, or close enough dialogue. And do it in a manageable way developmentally and gameplay wise (clearly they feel having more than 3 options shouldn't happen often)


So, I'd say its valid criticism, but also its not a deal breaker, and its something that maybe the tradeoffs just preclude. There is some small improvements that may have helped I think, with some of the major stuff, including the ending. But overall, imo pretty good attempt at narrative with significant playercharachter variation.

 

[GogRelvas]

I'll reiterate suspension of disbelief has nothing to do with the criticism.

I said I was questioning the entire foundation of the game narrative. This was meant to question the execution of that foundation. I could see how it could be confusing and perhaps it should have been worded better. A very small number of the reasons why were included right after that statement. Funnily enough, in the post where we got stuck on suspension of disbelief I specifically clarified what I was or was not criticizing.

To me the lead up to the Heist featured some cheesy dialogue, tried way too hard to drive home the themes it was attempting to explore and didn't offer enough contrast among the options presented in the flavor choices along the way. The end result is no matter what character you make it creates the sense you are supposed to agree with Jackie when he loses his mind over drink names, a blaze of glory, etc. You're supposed to say "yes sir" when Dex tells you to jump. We know with absolute certainty, based on hindsight, the job is supposed to go bad and V ends up completely screwed.

I'd point out that last one is different from those first two. That last one is an event occuring the player is involved with and, due to forces beyond their control, it goes badly. This would be those periods where the narrative must take command to progress itself. Those first two are hijacking the persona of the player character and saying "this is how your V thinks". That doesn't belong in a game with a player generated player character. Those moments, or choices, should have the player in the driver seat when they appear.

Now sure, you do have a "choice" when those events play out. Unfortunately there is almost zero contrast built into the options attached to those choices. Tell me, what the hell is the point of providing three options if they all functionally mean the same thing? At the very least meanings along similar lines. They couldn't at least build suitable contrast into those options and put that work on voice-overs, animations, etc. to functional use? As it was included it serves no purpose. It's wasted time and resources. This is what happens when you have to rush because your leadership is dysfunctional. Things slip through the cracks, get gutted or otherwise end up as a shadow of what they could be.

A more simple way to say this is the Heist going poorly is fine. The hijacking of the character persona is not. V accepting the job would have been far better if it were presented in a way where you could challenge what the game was trying to drive home. Present the themes. Don't force them upon the player. It's unnecessary to do so to get the point across. It's not the only example where this was done either.

The endings are probably a better example of the above. The decision you're presented plays the ambiguity card. The results omit choices the player should have been able to decide upon independently to drive home themes the game had already sufficiently covered well beforehand. It was an innappropriate place to incorporate any ambiguity if those themes were going to be incorporated as player world views and outlooks. It was arguably lame the way it coupled so many "choices" into a single decision.

I didn't say robbing Arasaka was dumb. I said the way it goes down is dumb. There is a difference. It was a little silly me to waltz right in there, no questions asked, when your fixer teleported out of nowhere with such swiftness it even manages to rival NCPD, drops a "let's retire" level job on V and Jackie specifically and the doll providing the BD footage asks you to fuck over that fixer. All of those elements could have easily been done any number of other ways without creating these type of "what the hell?" moments and preserving everything else.

We got even more what the hell moments because the conversation with Evelyn about cutting out Dex is pointless and goes nowhere. The shop talk with Dex about your cut is pointless and goes nowhere. The Maelstrom vs Militech part of the spider bot quest doesn't really maintain a respectable presence throughout the game. Adam Smasher gets hyped as a super cyborg villain all game and only has a single direct interaction with V. It goes down via him jumping out of a bush from nowhere and emotionally sabotaging the player. Clearly showing Smasher's teleportation rivals both NCPD and Dex.

Forgive me but you can feel this all went splendidly and is the pinnacle of epic RPG storytelling and execution. You're welcome to that opinion. I'd probably think you have low standards though.

See above.

There was no concrete, 100% confirmed evidence. There was a wealth of circumstantial evidence. At the very least there was a ton of information available suggesting the job was sketchy beyond belief and probably a bad idea. What didn't make the cut is the ability to select options to indicate your V recognized it.

Completely agree with this.

 

[LeKill3rFou]

"My biggest bother of this game"
It's that... it seem nothing... But an unique legendary item with no mod slot... It couldn't be more useless and frustrating !
Please CDPR, that's need to be fixed

 

[SigilFey]

I do think they may have been able to better write/predict a few thoughts the player might have, and give them a better one liner to express the player's opinion. V could make a comment to Jackie that he doesn't trust any of them, andV will do the heist but be ready for it to go south. They also could add slightly more complexity to major story/charachter beats decision trees. Where if you say like option 3, you have 3 options that elaborate on that. There is some dialogue like that, but its mostly just one teir of response.

^ This is the crux of every complaint that goes, "This or that game doesn't offer enough choice." ^ Right here. ^ This.

To those who want to argue that video games should offer more than they do:

When you play a roleplaying session with a live DM, the scripted plot, dialogue, etc. will be created to flavor the experience. It is not the experience. It's there to color and texture the world a little bit. The gameplay experience will then be 100% up to the players and the DM to improvise as the game progresses. Players can say anything they want. They can do anything they want. The DM can create any scenario imaginable as a response. They can have all sorts of crazy stuff happening they never planned for, and they can just wing it. This is why live, tabletop roleplaying is still so popular. It's not an experience you can have any other way.

When you create a computer roleplaying game...there is no dialogue aside from the pre-generated script. Period. It does not exist. Unless it is scripted, written, voice-acted, motion-captured, etc., it will not be in the game. Laws of physics and reality. Something that is not created cannot simply exist. Thus, there is no "flavor text" if the CRPG is going to be narratively driven. It will go only according to the script -- or there cannot be a script.

The way a game would avoid this necessity for linear restriction is to not offer a narrative arc. No beginning, middle, or end -- just a bunch of activities and some lore sprinkled around so players can imagine their motivations are whatever they want them to be. No, no one has ever played a game that offered completely open-ended narrative that also provided rich, engaging dialogue. What they've played are either:

a.) a story with a pretty linear narrative they subjectively preferred...
or
b.) a game that offered a lot more branches, but I guarantee you that they didn't include CDPR's level of writing polish with fully acted and motion-captured scenes. They're likely to be based on written text and minimalistic graphics, freeing up the game for a higher quantity of branching content.

If anyone think it's possible to do something like "b.)" while also paying actors, recording studios, and motion capture studios (or buying, maintaing, and staffing all of their own venues and equipment), then I challenge them to give it a try and let us know how it goes.

There are two options for now with CRPGs. On one end of the rope, we have a totally linear story with masterfully crafted acting and visual execution. On the other extreme we have completely text-based games with minimalistic or no graphcis/audio allowing it to branch in hundreds of different directions. Pretty much everything is going to land somewhere in the middle. Someday, it more will probably be possible on the cinematic end. But for now, CP2077 is offering about as much choice as is possible while still offering really open-ended gameplay and a completely cinematic execution. It's just that many people liked TW3's or Mass Effect's story better.

 

[Restlessdingo32]

I will say that as you mentioned there are real options with Jackie to reject his ideaology. I think these were actually good examples of disagreement. You can say you think death is to steep a price. And you can be generally unexcited about dex. I do think those are adequate, especially since V is not saying most of this stuff. Jackie is giving his perspective and V can dismiss it. Not to the level of an "arguement" but arguments are very tricky, because they require a greater understanding of whatever the player is thinking.
Even if the player feels hesitant about the heist, the reasons why, or even the tone and style of the of the complaint matters. So realistically, having the bigger fight, usually doesn't go well for me, generally taking me out it.

Saying death is a steep price in response to the statements by Jackie isn't disagreement. It's at best indifference.

I'm not sure what you mean by argument. The player doesn't have to "argue" with Jackie to disagree with the concept of going up in a blaze of glory. The player could be offered an option where V says something extremely ambigious, albeit still challenging, as a response. Say, "Right, jackie". By all means take some creative freedom and make Jackie interpret this as sarcasm, as would be the case. From there he can toss out some smartass retort. The end result would be the mood could remain relatively positive while the player has an option to challenge this idea.

Most of this type of stuff is not the end of the world. In other words, the specific scenario isn't even the root complaint. The root complaint is offering flavor choices without contrast is silly and a waste of time. Portions of game content creating the sense a player is boxed into a corner and is supposed to behave a certain way doesn't fit an RPG with a "blank slate" character. This game does both of these things. Not always in instances where it's unimportant either.

Any how my point is, there are limits to a writer being able to predict what a player wants to say. So sometimes the vague disapproval or one line rejections are better than a more detailed dialogue in terms of being true to the player's vision of V. And mostly, I think they usually find a good balance. This is why when they do go too far with a specific V dialog, or fail to address the elephant in the room, its more noticeable.

I do think they may have been able to better write/predict a few thoughts the player might have, and give them a better one liner to express the player's opinion. V could make a comment to Jackie that he doesn't trust any of them, andV will do the heist but be ready for it to go south. They also could add slightly more complexity to major story/charachter beats decision trees. Where if you say like option 3, you have 3 options that elaborate on that. There is some dialogue like that, but its mostly just one teir of response.

There are limits. That's why you ensure contrast exists among the available options when they appear. This way if you have, say, 3 different dialogue selections you could build each individual selection to fit a certain type of character. Not any character a player could come up with because that would be impossible with existing technology. Enough such that a handful of different versions of V get a say though. Do that enough times and sprinkle in options for dozens or hundreds of "choices are presented" moments and you can provide options for enough potential player creations. Well beyond 3 if you mix it up and weave in options for the potential player creations in different spots.

A good example of what that would look like is what we got with the lifepath mechanic. In that case they're attempting to fit a response fitting those three different character backstories in dialogue around the game world. The only difference encountered when applying that concept in the general sense is you have to mentally construct potential player characters instead of what you decided would exist in the lifepaths. Aka, you have to anticipate what type of characters players might create.

That lifepath mechanic wouldn't exactly work if you hit a point predetermined to prompt a lifepath selection and you get three Nomad oriented dialogue options. Most would think this is silly. Funnily enough, that's exactly what happens when you give someone three different ways to say the same thing. It can even come off that way if two choices are Nomad oriented and one is Streetkid oriented. Alternatively, when all three options could fit Nomad or Streetkid. So even if the options are close it can create the same issue.

That said, in all honesty this is extremely high level stuff and generally outside of what writers generally do. They usually make up characters, not try to guide/collaborate with players to create a cohesive narrative and do it without ever directly interacting with them.
To me this game is far, far above other attempts, which are usually super exxagerated (angel option, devil option, idontcare option) or they don't bother trying to express the player character motive at all. Yea, it takes me out of it a bit when they get my V wrong, but they have to come up with many different people's V, or close enough dialogue. And do it in a manageable way developmentally and gameplay wise (clearly they feel having more than 3 options shouldn't happen often)

See, I don't think it is or should be "extremely high level stuff". It's a baseline for "quality".

So, I'd say its valid criticism, but also its not a deal breaker, and its something that maybe the tradeoffs just preclude. There is some small improvements that may have helped I think, with some of the major stuff, including the ending. But overall, imo pretty good attempt at narrative with significant playercharachter variation.

It's not a deal breaker. I consider the game worth 60 bucks, surprisingly. Regardless, I'd probably rate it a solid 6 or 6.5. A 6 or 6.5 isn't worth getting excited. It's worth a one time play through before you shelve it.

The way a game would avoid this necessity for linear restriction is to not offer a narrative arc. No beginning, middle, or end -- just a bunch of activities and some lore sprinkled around so players can imagine their motivations are whatever they want them to be. No, no one has ever played a game that offered completely open-ended narrative that also provided rich, engaging dialogue. What they've played are either:

a.) a story with a pretty linear narrative they subjectively preferred...
or
b.) a game that offered a lot more branches, but I guarantee you that they didn't include CDPR's level of writing polish with fully acted and motion-captured scenes. They're likely to be based on written text and minimalistic graphics, freeing up the game for a higher quantity of branching content.

If anyone think it's possible to do something like "b.)" while also paying actors, recording studios, and motion capture studios (or buying, maintaing, and staffing all of their own venues and equipment), then I challenge them to give it a try and let us know how it goes.

The amount of voice-overs, motion capture, etc. isn't an issue. It's not a question of quantity. There was enough quantity. The quality is being questioned.

Imagine you're playing CP 2077 and in dialogue with Johnny. You're presented three options. They're all worded differently. Incidentally they are relying upon those expensive resources you listed. Now imagine all three of those options could be paraphrased as "yes Johnny". Am I supposed to wave this off as it's the best to be expected? Is that an effective use of those resources? Does a game have to completely gut it's narrative to go any further with it?

In regards to doing it myself.... Fortunately it's unnecessary. There are other video games.

There are two options for now with CRPGs. On one end of the rope, we have a totally linear story with masterfully crafted acting and visual execution. On the other extreme we have completely text-based games with minimalistic or no graphcis/audio allowing it to branch in hundreds of different directions. Pretty much everything is going to land somewhere in the middle. Someday, it more will probably be possible on the cinematic end. But for now, CP2077 is offering about as much choice as is possible while still offering really open-ended gameplay and a completely cinematic execution. It's just that many people liked TW3's or Mass Effect's story better.

Forgive me but it sounds like you're saying CP 2077 couldn't have been any better because it's not possible. The amount of video games able to make this claim is exactly zero.

I'd point out I've played quite a number of games in recent years providing exactly what CP does without many of the shortcomings it had with it's "branching" dialogue and game world spanning ripples. Perhaps they weren't as pretty, polished or had as wide a scope when dressed up but they were including the same elements and handling choices/consequences, branching, etc. better.

 

[northwold]

Saying death is a steep price in response to the statements by Jackie isn't disagreement. It's at best indifference.

I'm not sure what you mean by argument. The player doesn't have to "argue" with Jackie to disagree with the concept of going up in a blaze of glory. The player could be offered an option where V says something extremely ambigious, albeit still challenging, as a response. Say, "Right, jackie". By all means take some creative freedom and make Jackie interpret this as sarcasm, as would be the case. From there he can toss out some smartass retort. The end result would be the mood could remain relatively positive while the player has an option to challenge this idea.

Most of this type of stuff is not the end of the world. In other words, the specific scenario isn't even the root complaint. The root complaint is offering flavor choices without contrast is silly and a waste of time. Portions of game content creating the sense a player is boxed into a corner and is supposed to behave a certain way doesn't fit an RPG with a "blank slate" character. This game does both of these things. Not always in instances where it's unimportant either.

There are limits. That's why you ensure contrast exists among the available options when they appear. This way if you have, say, 3 different dialogue selections you could build each individual selection to fit a certain type of character. Not any character a player could come up with because that would be impossible with existing technology. Enough such that a handful of different versions of V get a say though. Do that enough times and sprinkle in options for dozens or hundreds of "choices are presented" moments and you can provide options for enough potential player creations. Well beyond 3 if you mix it up and weave in options for the potential player creations in different spots.

A good example of what that would look like is what we got with the lifepath mechanic. In that case they're attempting to fit a response fitting those three different character backstories in dialogue around the game world. The only difference encountered when applying that concept in the general sense is you have to mentally construct potential player characters instead of what you decided would exist in the lifepaths. Aka, you have to anticipate what type of characters players might create.

That lifepath mechanic wouldn't exactly work if you hit a point predetermined to prompt a lifepath selection and you get three Nomad oriented dialogue options. Most would think this is silly. Funnily enough, that's exactly what happens when you give someone three different ways to say the same thing. It can even come off that way if two choices are Nomad oriented and one is Streetkid oriented. Alternatively, when all three options could fit Nomad or Streetkid. So even if the options are close it can create the same issue.

See, I don't think it is or should be "extremely high level stuff". It's a baseline for "quality".

It's not a deal breaker. I consider the game worth 60 bucks, surprisingly. Regardless, I'd probably rate it a solid 6 or 6.5. A 6 or 6.5 isn't worth getting excited. It's worth a one time play through before you shelve it.

The amount of voice-overs, motion capture, etc. isn't an issue. It's not a question of quantity. There was enough quantity. The quality is being questioned.

Imagine you're playing CP 2077 and in dialogue with Johnny. You're presented three options. They're all worded differently. Incidentally they are relying upon those expensive resources you listed. Now imagine all three of those options could be paraphrased as "yes Johnny". Am I supposed to wave this off as it's the best to be expected? Is that an effective use of those resources? Does a game have to completely gut it's narrative to go any further with it?

In regards to doing it myself.... Fortunately it's unnecessary. There are other video games.

Forgive me but it sounds like you're saying CP 2077 couldn't have been any better because it's not possible. The amount of video games able to make this claim is exactly zero.

I'd point out I've played quite a number of games in recent years providing exactly what CP does without many of the shortcomings it had with it's "branching" dialogue and game world spanning ripples. Perhaps they weren't as pretty, polished or had as wide a scope when dressed up but they were including the same elements and handling choices/consequences, branching, etc. better.

I'm going to be controversial here and point out a game that is popular in some circles that offers a lot of customised choice and I personally think is so atrociously badly written as to border on unplayable: Disco Elysium.

That is the flipside of the coin.

Disco Elysium offers a lot of different narrative options. They are highly inconsistently written, there is almost no animation to match the walls of text (indeed, there was almost no voicing to match the text in the initial release), and the story goes essentially nowhere. The game almost never escapes the writers' (ultra-verbose and rather English-lit-undergrad-student) voices. It's as if the characters are speaking the prose of a bad novel.

That is what you get when you wheelbarrow in "choice" with no concern for making sure your characters speak like real people, without ever editing things down for a consistent, higher quality experience, and without paying attention to wider questions of design or presentation.

Yes, some people may prefer that but it really is a choice unless you expect games to take 20 years to develop and to need 20-million copy sales to break even.

Some people prefer mediocre stories with more choice. Some people prefer very honed narratives with less choice.

And, in fact, I question whether games will *ever* be able to offer a genuinely polished narrative experience with truly massive amounts of choice for one simple reason: all the money in the world and all the time in the world will never change the fact that there aren't that many writers around at any given time who can write really sharp dialogue. There never will be. And there will be even fewer who want to spend three or four years of their lives focused on a single computer game when they could, for example, be writing for movies or TV.

PS CDPR seem to make games from the principle of "what story do we want to tell, then make the game to tell it". A developer like Bethesda seems to take the opposite approach of "we want X mechanic to follow Y mechanic to follow Z mechanic -- write the story around that". Both approaches have their merits, but it does become a question of what you are looking for in a gaming experience.

 

[Didacgomez]

There is also one point that many people forget about "world changing around character". If the game setting its build from scratch the developer might allow to destroy the world,city,kill NPCs and so on,but if the game its build over an existing franchise the decisions that might impact the world tend to be limited depending on the license agreement.
In CP2077,i don't know the details but Pondsmith said something like "i didn't give them my baby" so one should not expect world changing stories in principle.
Which is pretty much the same as with D&D based videogames that respect the world setting.

 

[Guest 3847602]

There is also one point that many people forget about "world changing around character". If the game setting its build from scratch the developer might allow to destroy the world,city,kill NPCs and so on,but if the game its build over an existing franchise the decisions that might impact the world tend to be limited depending on the license agreement.
In CP2077,i don't know the details but Pondsmith said something like "i didn't give them my baby" so one should not expect world changing stories in principle.
Which is pretty much the same as with D&D based videogames that respect the world setting.

World-changing events in the first game would also create a nightmare for people working on the sequels.
TW2 (seemingly) had 4 world-changing endings and it was practically impossible to write coherent story for TW3 while respecting all worldstates from the previous game. They basically canonized one path and got criticized for it.

 

[Didacgomez]

World-changing events in the first game would also create a nightmare for people working on the sequels.
TW2 (seemingly) had 4 world-changing endings and it was practically impossible to write coherent story for TW3 while respecting all worldstates from the previous game. They basically canonized one path and got criticized for it.

They have the same "problem" in cp2077 with devil vs other endings (and with npcs that live or not between sun and star and secret). Personally, i don't see it as a problem that for a sequel 1 ending is canon...but I know some people will write endless posts.

 

[LeKill3rFou]

They have the same "problem" in cp2077 with devil vs other endings (and with npcs that live or not between sun and star and secret). Personally, i don't see it as a problem that for a sequel 1 ending is canon...but I know some people will write endless posts.

Exactly, Me in first
If CDPR don't choose my V leaving NC with Judy. That will be the worse ever... It would stick severely across my throat
Like if it's the Sun... I would have to let Judy leave NC alone... I dare not imagine it

 

[northwold]

They have the same "problem" in cp2077 with devil vs other endings (and with npcs that live or not between sun and star and secret). Personally, i don't see it as a problem that for a sequel 1 ending is canon...but I know some people will write endless posts.

Indeed. It's a very serious problem indeed when your (mine -- I find it the most narratively satisfactory) preferred ending doesn't beget a sequel *at all*. :-D

It also creates issues for DLCs that I'd be curious to see how, or if, they resolve. One option is to go backwards in time but that potentially causes practical issues unless Keanu Reeves was signed for DLC or the lines were already recorded.

 

[Nunnek]

Indeed. It's a very serious problem indeed when your (mine -- I find it the most narratively satisfactory) preferred ending doesn't beget a sequel *at all*. :-D

It also creates issues for DLCs that I'd be curious to see how, or if, they resolve. One option is to go backwards in time but that potentially causes practical issues unless Keanu Reeves was signed for DLC or the lines were already recorded.

They can just do DLC story without Silverhand bec V took blue pills to keep him down. Simple lore answer.

 

[northwold]

They can just do DLC story without Silverhand bec V took blue pills to keep him down. Simple lore answer.

Indeed they could but it wouldn't be very fun, just a cheap getout.

 

[Nunnek]

Indeed they could but it wouldn't be very fun, just a cheap getout.

Thats why not many games get a famous actor as one of the main characters. Most of the time it is some side character that isnt importand.
IMO if the DLC story is good enough players wont mind it too much. If they fail with the story then even more ppl will be angry for not having silverhand. All is on the writing team now.

 

[northwold]

Thats why not many games get a famous actor as one of the main characters. Most of the time it is some side character that isnt importand.
IMO if the DLC story is good enough players wont mind it too much. If they fail with the story then even more ppl will be angry for not having silverhand. All is on the writing team now.

I think one of the worst examples of this has been ESO, which used a full slate of names at launch and then, when they had to start reworking the game mere months after release, there was simply no way they could edit the story. It has made progressively less and less sense as they have added content, and they've had to add in excuses like "oh, the queen's [Kate Beckinsale] away, I'm her substitute. Hi."

 

[lyin321]

Indeed they could but it wouldn't be very fun, just a cheap getout.

I don't understand...why is missing Silverhand such a bad thing?

b.) a game that offered a lot more branches, but I guarantee you that they didn't include CDPR's level of writing polish with fully acted and motion-captured scenes. They're likely to be based on written text and minimalistic graphics, freeing up the game for a higher quantity of branching content.

If anyone think it's possible to do something like "b.)" while also paying actors, recording studios, and motion capture studios (or buying, maintaing, and staffing all of their own venues and equipment), then I challenge them to give it a try and let us know how it goes.

But the solution to that is pretty simple, isn't it? Someone just has to create Skynet and have it duplicate itself in as many game copies as needed, giving it the game assets it needs to create and manipulate the world depending on player choices.
....oh and hope the AI doesn't destroy the world

 

[northwold]

I don't understand...why is missing Silverhand such a bad thing?

Because in story terms it's hard to make it make sense given how fundamental he is in the game.