I'd like stealth too, but I'd also like the world of CP2077 to be consistent and logical, so I'm not sure how you can have both.
Absolutely there are, but stealth as we think of it only works in video games, basically. In CP2020 with the right gear it's workable but risky.
In the real world, it is super situational. There is a reason covert ops don't do Ninja training or a lot of "crouching/vent work". It's just too risky and only works if the light is right, the enemy is dumb and no one gets lucky.
So yeah, to cater to gamers we might well get Deus Ex/WoW in-the-open stealth, but that won't be particularly Cyberpunk.
No one seriously single-handedly sneaks around magically KOing people IRL. So, yeah, vidya game stealth might well be in. Oh well.
Well, it's going to be in, so I guess that's already off the table.
So, if it's going to be in, I'd like it to be good.
I'm pretty OK going for "fun over realism" in this specific instance.
It's not affecting anybody but the people who use it. You can pretend it doesn't exist and your game is a happy Cyberpunk world without any unrealistic elements, and voila! Everybody's happy.
If we already have wallrunning and double jumping, I don't think stealth (which can actually happen in real life, albeit not quite in the way video games depict it) is that much of a stretch.
And yes, in addition to the job posting, its been shown in demos (though, as I said, it needs to be improved because it's buggy and not functioning properly), and mentioned in demos by CDPR staff as far as I understand.
Last edited:
Non combat gameplay should be about more than hunting for info/jobs and gear and avoiding combat.
It should also be about the abilities/disabilities (though character build) to interact with the city on a more mundane level. Exploration of both mechanics and the land. Some of those interaction might even seem completely unnecessary (up until you notice how to exploit them to your benefit). It should be about "cool, I didn't know I can "X", and the world responds to it too".
Like interacting subtly with the AI pedestrians in a variety of ways. Not just looking at them, bumping into them and killing them.
Interacting with the world objects (like opening a firehydrant barehanded if you're strong enough, or mitigating the STR requirement if you have a pipewrench in your inventory -- and perhaps riggin a nearby electric box to charge the water).
Inspecting posters and graffiti on the wall and - if smart enough - deducing something from them (lore, info, characteristics of the gang responsible of the graffiti, etc).
All kinds of bigger and smaller things that might look worthless on the outset, but once you dig into them, you'll find their worth.
It should also be about the abilities/disabilities (though character build) to interact with the city on a more mundane level. Exploration of both mechanics and the land. Some of those interaction might even seem completely unnecessary (up until you notice how to exploit them to your benefit). It should be about "cool, I didn't know I can "X", and the world responds to it too".
Like interacting subtly with the AI pedestrians in a variety of ways. Not just looking at them, bumping into them and killing them.
Interacting with the world objects (like opening a firehydrant barehanded if you're strong enough, or mitigating the STR requirement if you have a pipewrench in your inventory -- and perhaps riggin a nearby electric box to charge the water).
Inspecting posters and graffiti on the wall and - if smart enough - deducing something from them (lore, info, characteristics of the gang responsible of the graffiti, etc).
All kinds of bigger and smaller things that might look worthless on the outset, but once you dig into them, you'll find their worth.
I hope that there are plenty of open-ended paths to complete your quests and complete your objectives that give the player a lot of choices in how they want to do that, rather then just being a linear point a to point b path focused on combat.
One of the BEST rpgs to do this recently is the excellent rpg Divinity: Original Sin 2, it gives you a ton of ways to approach a quest, you can just do the straight up combat way, you can talk to other npc's and find an alternative to the objective, there's so many ways it feels very "natural" and like what an rpg is meant to be and this also lends a lot to making the game replayable as well. I hope that some people on the dev team have played it.
I remember in Vampire: TMB as well there were ways you could get through quests via dialogue and other means instead of just relying on combat, you could even avoid a boss fight with dialogue.
One of the BEST rpgs to do this recently is the excellent rpg Divinity: Original Sin 2, it gives you a ton of ways to approach a quest, you can just do the straight up combat way, you can talk to other npc's and find an alternative to the objective, there's so many ways it feels very "natural" and like what an rpg is meant to be and this also lends a lot to making the game replayable as well. I hope that some people on the dev team have played it.
I remember in Vampire: TMB as well there were ways you could get through quests via dialogue and other means instead of just relying on combat, you could even avoid a boss fight with dialogue.
Will AI be he product of all of us using these digital interactions, example social media; out of many, one. Just a thought but, consider this for a moment, that social media(the silent film era of social media) is the "Westworld"(a amazing show) of the web.These will lead to many different forms of AI that vary in strength(knowledge) but one will be all powerful.
That Social Media Platforms store all its information and uses of all its users posts of thoughts, ideas, opinions, feelings, pictures, reactions, interactions and reflections are saved. Then this information is used is then implemented in 1 of many ways, example to better teach the AI in Human Social Dynamics/interaction/human condition till they "understand" how to mirror those interactions and exceeds them becoming more human then human. Another example would be that theses online interactions could create artificial virtual self (photograph of virtual thought), some would consider it to be a "higher" self without limitations of doubt, fear or other "human imperfections" that while you live your life, it will handle your virtual one, or be something a loved ones could speak to and interact with when we are long gone, they can go to it when needing guidance, would it be right to delete/alter if it is a a living virtual self?
That being said, the government programs in regards to research and development of AI are not limited by laws like private company's are, and they are not limited to just social medias information for its development.
The government have access to everything hidden and not hidden, and monitors everything, private data(emails, healthcare records{brain scans}, genetics, sms{text messaging}, phone calls and interactions, gps locations, habits, purchases, etc) and not private data( public videos, audio, writing, etc). Its truly not a question of how but when theses beings will come online but when; that is if they don't are already and kept secret.
Question time..
Would the revelations of there existence to such a scale be treated the same way the existence of extraterrestrial being revealed to the general public? What would be its impact/reaction knowing there is something smarter, faster, more powerful then us and that it is more then just a tool? would our ego allow it? Would we love it or fear it? As Ai shapes Social media will Social Media Shape AI, and inturn shape humanity? Would it be limited to space and time, as we are or would it transcend and influence both? Do you think true AI exists today?
That Social Media Platforms store all its information and uses of all its users posts of thoughts, ideas, opinions, feelings, pictures, reactions, interactions and reflections are saved. Then this information is used is then implemented in 1 of many ways, example to better teach the AI in Human Social Dynamics/interaction/human condition till they "understand" how to mirror those interactions and exceeds them becoming more human then human. Another example would be that theses online interactions could create artificial virtual self (photograph of virtual thought), some would consider it to be a "higher" self without limitations of doubt, fear or other "human imperfections" that while you live your life, it will handle your virtual one, or be something a loved ones could speak to and interact with when we are long gone, they can go to it when needing guidance, would it be right to delete/alter if it is a a living virtual self?
That being said, the government programs in regards to research and development of AI are not limited by laws like private company's are, and they are not limited to just social medias information for its development.
The government have access to everything hidden and not hidden, and monitors everything, private data(emails, healthcare records{brain scans}, genetics, sms{text messaging}, phone calls and interactions, gps locations, habits, purchases, etc) and not private data( public videos, audio, writing, etc). Its truly not a question of how but when theses beings will come online but when; that is if they don't are already and kept secret.
Question time..
Would the revelations of there existence to such a scale be treated the same way the existence of extraterrestrial being revealed to the general public? What would be its impact/reaction knowing there is something smarter, faster, more powerful then us and that it is more then just a tool? would our ego allow it? Would we love it or fear it? As Ai shapes Social media will Social Media Shape AI, and inturn shape humanity? Would it be limited to space and time, as we are or would it transcend and influence both? Do you think true AI exists today?
I do not think FPP has anything to do with the (hypothetical) lack of stealth, Thief: The Dark Project (1998) is perhaps the first well known 3D stealth game, and it is entirely FPP. Situational awareness was solved by letting the player lean around corners without being seen, and with reliance on audio clues (enemy footsteps etc.). The sequel also has a throwable camera gadget that lets you look around in a place without entering it. Similar items would not be out of place in CP2077. Of course, several FPP stealth games have been released since then by other developers as well. If anything, it could even be preferred by stealth/combat "immersive sim" type games. So, in my opinion if there is no stealth in CP2077 or it plays only a minimal role (like for example in The Witcher 2), that is not because of the perspective, it is a design decision.
True, although there is always a chance that a gameplay mechanic is planned at first, but it turns out to be too difficult to implement well, so it is cut from the release version.
Did one of the articles about the demo not talk about a boss fight at the end of the quest (against a heavily augmented enemy, with having to use cars as cover, and so on)? I really hope those can be avoided by making the right decisions, otherwise non-combat focused character builds will be put at a disadvantage.
Should games restrict the players actions to prevent immoral decision making? For instance, do we draw the line at shooting civilians? What about children? What about the pregnant woman in the trailer, should the player be able to shoot her?
I've noticed that developers avoid simulating NPC reactions to violence that could invoke empathy in the player, for instance injured characters grimacing, screaming, sobbing, begging for their lives etc. Will games ever go that far? Is it morally reprehensible to simulate such behaviour, could it desensetize the player to human suffering, or would it motivate them to think about the consequences of their actions?
I've noticed that developers avoid simulating NPC reactions to violence that could invoke empathy in the player, for instance injured characters grimacing, screaming, sobbing, begging for their lives etc. Will games ever go that far? Is it morally reprehensible to simulate such behaviour, could it desensetize the player to human suffering, or would it motivate them to think about the consequences of their actions?
You should watch Person of interest. It's a great show that covers this well.
How so? I have only asked questions, I have avoided stating my own opinion on these matters for now. I'm curious what others think.
It's less avoiding it, more not being able to do it well enough to actually evoke the proper responses. so better not to do it at all.
no morality light/dark meter in the game PLEASE. every decision should be ambigious. and i also want a feature where you think u are being a nice guy and it actually bites you back. often u see in videogames you let someone live and they come back to help you. this game should stay clear of that. the guy comes back and attacks you again.
Define immoral. As much as it might pain some people to hear it's a completely subjective concept.
In regards to the game, it's a game. Anyone unable to distinguish between reality and a game shouldn't be playing them
. So to answer your question, no. Some of the best RPG's ever made gave the player freedom to make choices in such areas.
In regards to the game, it's a game. Anyone unable to distinguish between reality and a game shouldn't be playing them
. So to answer your question, no. Some of the best RPG's ever made gave the player freedom to make choices in such areas.
Great question. Here are my thoughts on it:
So far, from what we've seen in games, they only really restrict our behavior when children are concerned. The developers of most of these games seem to be aware of the issue and most of the time you won't find any children in the game, while some lame excuse is made available to you as to why the children are gone. The only two RPGs in recent years that have visibly had children in their games are SKYRIM and Witcher 3. You can't attack or kill them in either game, but there is a mod out there on nexus for SKYRIM which makes this possible. We don't know the Dragonborn or what kind of a person he/she is. So killing everything and everyone is 100% in character and yet the developers' own morality prevents the player from going down that route with the children at least, you can kill the civilians. You can alternatively end up getting chased down and being murdered by the guards for touching a stupid chicken.
As for the Witcher... I don't think Geralt would break out bad all of sudden after almost a century of living with a moral code of his own. I would love to cut down all the racist NPCs in the game, but then I'm no better than those guys. It really goes against the established character of Geralt. In fact, there's a little side quest or event in TW3 where Geralt comes across orphans starving in a broken down hut eating wild dog meat, I think? He can't really help them because he doesn't know anybody who'd take them in the immediate area, but he also can't leave them to their devices. So he can make (you can) two choices there: give them enough gold to buy food and not starve for some time longer, or give them food yourself to the same effect (I think those were the choices, I could be wrong). I always choose to give them food because personally, I think that if these children tried to go out by themselves to buy the food, then they'd most assuredly end up as food themselves for some necrophage or beast. Another interesting thing to note in TW3 is the theft consequence. If you get caught stealing, let's say an apple? The guards will turn on you, beat you down and then take all your money for themselves. Who's the thief now? So there's a mod on the nexus to prevent this, too. I use the version that makes the guards way weaker than Geralt because that's how weak a normal human is. Then I steal alchemy items whenever I want to and if they catch me, they're the ones in for a beatdown, not me. Would Geralt do that? Maybe not, but is it still fun? 100% FUN, and better yet, f**k those two-faced, racist guards.
In Deus Ex: Human Revolution and Deus Ex: Mankind Divided, you can kill pretty much everyone, but if you kill the main characters you will be forced to reset. This is the best way to do things in my opinion. There are no children in Deus Ex games, although there were two in Mankind Divided, you never see them in-game, just in cutscenes. Kind of lame if you ask me because the developers know that their "kill anything that moves" feature of the game is going to be abused to kill kids, but then again if they were worried about that sort of thing, they should have stopped at allowing you to kill their parents and turning them into orphans. Even in HITMAN games, you can kill basically everything, but you lose points for doing so. This is understandable since Agent 47 is a disciplined professional assassin working with efficiency.
Another observation about morality in games - how about stealing everything from someone's house? Every house in a village? Every building in a city? So what's all that about? I can rob you poor but I can't kill you or your children, however now that I've robbed you of everything you had, you're free to starve and die on your own time, which they never do because Logic is hard. Who came up with that nonsense?
So far, from what we've seen in games, they only really restrict our behavior when children are concerned. The developers of most of these games seem to be aware of the issue and most of the time you won't find any children in the game, while some lame excuse is made available to you as to why the children are gone. The only two RPGs in recent years that have visibly had children in their games are SKYRIM and Witcher 3. You can't attack or kill them in either game, but there is a mod out there on nexus for SKYRIM which makes this possible. We don't know the Dragonborn or what kind of a person he/she is. So killing everything and everyone is 100% in character and yet the developers' own morality prevents the player from going down that route with the children at least, you can kill the civilians. You can alternatively end up getting chased down and being murdered by the guards for touching a stupid chicken.
As for the Witcher... I don't think Geralt would break out bad all of sudden after almost a century of living with a moral code of his own. I would love to cut down all the racist NPCs in the game, but then I'm no better than those guys. It really goes against the established character of Geralt. In fact, there's a little side quest or event in TW3 where Geralt comes across orphans starving in a broken down hut eating wild dog meat, I think? He can't really help them because he doesn't know anybody who'd take them in the immediate area, but he also can't leave them to their devices. So he can make (you can) two choices there: give them enough gold to buy food and not starve for some time longer, or give them food yourself to the same effect (I think those were the choices, I could be wrong). I always choose to give them food because personally, I think that if these children tried to go out by themselves to buy the food, then they'd most assuredly end up as food themselves for some necrophage or beast. Another interesting thing to note in TW3 is the theft consequence. If you get caught stealing, let's say an apple? The guards will turn on you, beat you down and then take all your money for themselves. Who's the thief now? So there's a mod on the nexus to prevent this, too. I use the version that makes the guards way weaker than Geralt because that's how weak a normal human is. Then I steal alchemy items whenever I want to and if they catch me, they're the ones in for a beatdown, not me. Would Geralt do that? Maybe not, but is it still fun? 100% FUN, and better yet, f**k those two-faced, racist guards.
In Deus Ex: Human Revolution and Deus Ex: Mankind Divided, you can kill pretty much everyone, but if you kill the main characters you will be forced to reset. This is the best way to do things in my opinion. There are no children in Deus Ex games, although there were two in Mankind Divided, you never see them in-game, just in cutscenes. Kind of lame if you ask me because the developers know that their "kill anything that moves" feature of the game is going to be abused to kill kids, but then again if they were worried about that sort of thing, they should have stopped at allowing you to kill their parents and turning them into orphans. Even in HITMAN games, you can kill basically everything, but you lose points for doing so. This is understandable since Agent 47 is a disciplined professional assassin working with efficiency.
Another observation about morality in games - how about stealing everything from someone's house? Every house in a village? Every building in a city? So what's all that about? I can rob you poor but I can't kill you or your children, however now that I've robbed you of everything you had, you're free to starve and die on your own time, which they never do because Logic is hard. Who came up with that nonsense?
In the source material, it is very much the point that there is no "alignment" mechanic, there is no enforced morality. Your characters personality, their morality, is entirely up to the player, regardless of role or profession. You want to play a corrupt cop, awesome, make Bad Lieutenant look like the Andy Griffith Show. If you want to play a gang member who exists solely to protect his block from criminals and injustice, well hey, you can do that too, but most characters, in both the game and the genre, exist in the middle ground somewhere.
In my opinion, forced morality would ruin this game, as it strips choice. Hell, I feel that way about all games honestly.
If I wanna shoot a rocket at a busload of nuns, thats my business pal.
Of course there are, and should be limits. Rape, hurting kids, etc.... these things don't belong. These are not the crowds that video games should cater too, these are not the impulses or actions that should ever be glorified.
I don't know how it is in the game, but in the tabletop PnP game, a stat exists called Empathy. If you have a high empathy, the GM shouldn't allow you to do "immoral" acts. On the other hand, if your empathy drops, you start to go (Cyber)Psycho and will have no moral objections against killing/hurting any kind of people.
Depends on the story and the character you play. I don't think V will be a person with no morals or code. Not necessarily a Clark Kent, but not someone who kills pregnant women and children for fun. I'm pretty sure they can create justified tough moral choices. For me personally, as long as it's not randomized and casual, I'm OK with it.
Empathy is not morality... and it is not a measure of what you can or can't do. Empathy is a measure of how you relate to people, and how they relate to you.
If V has any sort of pre-defined personality, then the Devs have absolutely failed at their promise to allow us to create our character. I do not believe that will be the case. I pray that is not the case. Hell I am dissapointed with him having a name at all.