casuals who like big explosions and cool graphics are the majority of gamers, aren't they?Suhiira;n9602541 said:
- Status
Its ok because its CDPR, they make RPG's and if they have enough deep engaging RPG features in the game, any trigger happy cod player won't have the attention span to play 2077. SO unless 2077 is another FPS with only the aesthetics of Cyberpunk, it won't appeal to that casual crowd...Lisbeth_Salander;n9602601 said:
Perhaps the Multiplayer will focus on that casual crowd?BeastModeIron;n9603421 said:
Damn, how casual-friendly and addictive the multiplayer should be, the basically different game? Is such plan includes lootboxes? Better not be.Lisbeth_Salander;n9604521 said:
seamless multiplayer is a nice thing in a sandbox game. What is Cyberpunk 2077 story about again?metalmaniac21;n9604991 said:
I argue that this is a fallacy of reasoning. A single perspective determining what makes "gaming" successful or unsuccessful, as a whole, is simply not possible. That would require a single, universal context that all players share. Never gonna happen.Mebrilia;n9601961 said:
I, personally, love a wide variety of game types. And, for myself, the more deep and complex the game is, the more I tend to get into it. However, the types of games that I've been most engrossed in over time never did amazingly well financially. (Master of Magic / Master of Orion 1-2, Missionforce: Cyberstorm, the Close Combat series, the original XCOM series, Space Rangers, Shatterstar, I-War, Nox, Divine Divinity...more contemporary entries would be Starsector, Evochron, Rodina, Balrum, Exanima, Cataclysm: DDA, Salt and Sanctuary, the Spiderweb games [especially Exile / Avernum]...) Nor, ironically, do I keep coming back to many of those games again and again. Only a few.
What I do spend a lot of time playing are the games that create a nice mix of depth and flair -- even if they leave me wanting for certain gameplay elements. And the market agrees with most of the games that I play the most. (Not everything, but most.) Conversely, the ones that impressed me the most, the ones I wish more games could be like, don't usually make the cut. They were never that popular. They developed niche followings. The ones that make it big are the ones that deliver on the most sought after formulae. And those, disappointingly, will never be the games that require a 200+ page manual, or a 3-4 month learning curve...regardless of how much I love them...
So, for Cyberpunk (or any major game) to depart so far from the "norm" or the "expectations" of the mass market would be to shoot itself in the foot. A LOT of money is going to be spent on this title, and it will need to make more than that back to keep the business end of CDPR afloat. I believe that risks will be taken, but they need to be calculated.
I agree to a large extent with your sentiment about modern games being toys, but I also think this was a major element in what made the gaming industry explode. To set that aside entirely would not be wise. I mean...where would open-world design be, for example, without GTA3 originally letting you wreak havoc around Liberty City without consequence? Or if The Sims had presented a "Game Over" screen if players skipped work too many times? Or if Minecraft had never been created? Toys spark imagination and generate lateral thinking skills...even if they're not terribly "challenging".
I just tried to explain that I don't want to feel like I am the character. This doesn't mean that I want the experience to be exactly like a movie (that would be meaningless). I mentioned Deus Ex as an example where the main protagonist is fully voiced, but where you still have the freedom to choose how to navigate the world. It's an incredibly immersive experience. I don't think the game would've been as immersive if the character was completely silent.metalmaniac21;n9600141 said:
I want Cyberpunk 2077 to be like Deus Ex.
I'd say VERY.metalmaniac21;n9604991 said:
Let that aspect of the game appeal to the COD crowd. Most of them aren't really all that interested in single-player games anyway.
As I mentioned above, the action game crowd isn't all that interested in single-player games in the first place (with exceptions like Doom), so CDPR could ... should ... make the multi-player aspect of the game appeal to them with all the flashy graphics, FPS mechanics, and lack of substance we expect from that sort of game. Even make it RPG lite, since most CP2020 skills are irrelevant to combat. The rest of us can just ignore the multi-player and enjoy the single-player RPG experience.SigilFey;n9605411 said:
Last edited:
I sure hope not, I don't want any area of 2077 to focus on anything casual.Lisbeth_Salander;n9604521 said:
You don't have to be casual to be popular.
PUBG is immensely popular despite having some hardcore elements such as inventory management, waiting( a lot), and high damage numbers(sometimes anyway). I don't think that should be the goal of the multiplayer anyway.I want to see them do something meaningful with it. What's the point of making a multiplayer game that already exist else where?
PUBG is immensely popular despite having some hardcore elements such as inventory management, waiting( a lot), and high damage numbers(sometimes anyway). I don't think that should be the goal of the multiplayer anyway.I want to see them do something meaningful with it. What's the point of making a multiplayer game that already exist else where?
It is true that sometimes "hardcore" games become very popular, but not always, and they are often by small developers originally not expecting the game to end up being a huge success. On the other hand, large AAA studios developing multiplatform games prefer to minimize risks.Meccanical;n9608081 said:
Let's not forget that Pubg popularized the new battle royale game mode and made it accessible for any steam user with decent enough rig to run it first. So in order to be popular, REDs must be really creative and innovative regarding multiplayer to gather a real big fanbase, that also wouldn't bother singleplayer RPG fans with whine about difficulty set too high and system complexity too overwhelming for them. That seamless MP thingie sounds alot like what Ubisoft does since Watch Dogs (2013) or From Software with Dark Souls for console generations, so it must be real breakthrough to get people's interest.Meccanical;n9608081 said:
Forgive me for sounding obtuse, but I may have missed earlier details. What do you imagine the difference between singleplayer and multiplayer would be like?Suhiira;n9605691 said:
For me, I'd love it if the multiplayer aspects ran parallel (or even perpendicular) to the singleplayer story line. A collection of little RPG quests set in other areas of Night City that expand on events that are only referenced or alluded to in the main quest. Or, they would cross the main quest -- so, you would wind up seeing your own SP character in action from the perspective of your MP character for a brief time. Then the story lines would diverge again. Some of these could certainly be action-/combat-heavy to appeal to the run-and-gun crowd.
I'd prefer it be like you said.SigilFey;n9612901 said:
But if for some reason CDPR feels a burning need to create a "popular" game to insure sales let's face it, turning the multiplayer into COD2077 would be their best bet.
I'd prefer a locally hosted team PVE or PVP (not both at the same time, I don't want to compete with, or require, other players for in-game resources) play options. We know it's not going to be an MMO (no way is CDPR going to want to support the needed server farm) so multi-player will have to be smaller scale. The problem is, without central servers how the hell do you support multi-player on consoles? I guess there's a way but since I don't own (or desire to own) any consoles I have no clue how they manage it without servers.
Well, if they're definitely not doing servers, then local hosting or peer-to-peer would be the only other options. I think that For Honor more or less put the final nail in the coffin for peer-to-peer, so I wouldn't worry about that. Logic would dictate that they'll simply have servers. I'm not really sure about the console end. Being able to play local / splitscreen...perhaps something like Fable or Divinity: OS would work.Suhiira;n9613141 said:
I think the biggest mystery here is how combat would actually work. I somehow doubt that it's going to be pure "shooter" mechanics. When I look at the artwork and think about the world, I think that an approach like the old Bungie game Oni would be cool. Something that seamlessly mixes the mechanics of 3rd-person shooter, fighting game, acrobatics / free-running, and stealth.
Why couldn't PvE and PvP exist together using the same systems, obviously not an MMO, more seamlessly connected small scale battles. Who's to say your single player characters won't be used in multiplayer as well without the need for any changes in gameplay. The game won't need to be anything like an MMO or Cod to have PvP separate, but would probably still require a central server to run seamless multiplayer within a single player world. I imagine both existing at the same time in the same areas, I could be wrong but I highly doubt SP and MP being separate entities from each other.Suhiira;n9613141 said:
I hope there is only attitude regarding the whole "punk" thing in Cyberpunk 2077. Because I don't want punk rock because I hate punk rock so goddamm much. (with an exception of a few songs and bands)
Most people can't listen to the song you posted in a headphone and dance to its rhythm because it has no rhythm, it's absolute chaos. It's a mess.kofeiiniturpa;n9618751 said:
Now take Billi Idol's songs and realise how much more of a pop crisp vibe they have. This is way more catchy:
Last edited:
Of course they can't, that's why I posted it. GG Allin's about the crudest thing in the genre you can get.Lisbeth_Salander;n9619621 said:
I don't listen to punk, though. I did some when I was younger, but haven't in years. Gotta say, though, Billy Idol and similiar pop punk is nice people's punk, not very "rebellious". Not that its bad, but nonetheless.
Last edited:
- Status