Not everybody in Cyberpunk is bad. Now, i couldn't claim those people are "good", but i wouldn't call them bad either.Then you'll really hate CP2077 chombatta. Every body's a bad guy in Cyberpunk
Now you're talking my language, my friend......I'll just leave this here...
You may be on to something.
I just don't see how this should be possible in the Dark Future. Death is everywhere. The city thrives on the blood of its citizens.
However, if there is enough call for it, then I suppose non-lethal options are viable. But I would imaine they would be much more difficult to achieve than a .44 to the head...
However, if there is enough call for it, then I suppose non-lethal options are viable. But I would imaine they would be much more difficult to achieve than a .44 to the head...
Gameplay-wise, it has to do with tactical approaches. Stuff like stealth and lethal approaches or options as you mentioned. Storywise it has to do with the post cyberpunk flavour, which is more popular than the cyberpunk one. See deus ex, matrix, gits, real drive or anything similar
I think that stealth and non aggression play-through should be possible but it has to result in a different narrative. Let me give you a spoiler to the original Deus Ex. You and your brother are trapped in his apartment and baddies are about to charge in guns blazing. You can easily not fight and escape through the window and fire exit however it results in your brother's death or you could stay and fight and if you do it well enough he is alive. Woppy yay! Different actions hence different result. I think that asking for non aggression play-style is reasonable asking that it acts out just as lethal one is bit foolish.
For me (and I assume most of the people also) it's about having the choice in every encounter. It doesn't mean that I would play whole game without killing anyone.
Just let me choose if it is worth killing/saving someone or if they deserve it.
I agree about the different playthroughs...having effects on narrative/story development is something related to "replayability", though. Which is partly about making choices and see what comes out of the story. Don't know about the witcher games, but despite all the options most of the quests/dialogues become simple exercises of common sense because of this. Trying to be nice may reward players and doing this until the end leads to a good ending, which is the best thing one can get out of a game. No more reasons to play it again. :/ Deus Ex games always had ambiguous endings because of this.
I second that. Should have a minimal impact on the story, though:/
That is unrealistic. IF non-lethal force was always a vivable option, then no police force would arm their officers, not even Armed Responce. By all means 'try' to avoid using lethal force, but you should not be given the option of always being able to be successful with that approach.
I didn't mean "I don't understand how this could work" I meant that I do not see it working.
I don't think you'll need to worry about the game rewarding "being nice". The concept doesn't really exist in a CDPR game. Choices have consequences, good or bad.
If you ask a dozen Witcher fans which is the "best ending", you'll probably get more than a dozen different answers.
And it isn't unusual for someone to go into the forums complaining that they've just spent hours agonising over a decision, only to be advised "Pick whichever feels right to you".
And regarding game logic, then yes, I agree that there are times in a game where a non-lethal decision doesn't make sense as far as character motivation is concerned (obvious example, Malik ambush in DX:HR). But replayability is important, and if someone wants to make their fifth playthrough Pacifist so that they can get a Steam Achievement, why not?
Yeah, exactly. This strikes at the root of my dissatisfaction with non-lethal playthrough: it's just cartoon-silly to me. Sometimes, you have no other reasonable choice. When the game pulls a reality muscle trying to give you one, it comes across as utterly false.
And things should be -harsher- in Cyberpunk 2077 than in the Real World Now. Not huggier.
And things should be -harsher- in Cyberpunk 2077 than in the Real World Now. Not huggier.
Exactly! In my opinion game is way more fun if you choose what feels right at the moment. I don't really see the fun if I would decide beforehand to play good/bad guy and basically having decided the answer even before conversation had started.
I don't replay games that much, but have played some (MEs, W2, Kotors). But even when I replay game I mostly end up making same decisions.
i like that about CDPR, everything you do has consequences and your choice isnt always good or bad. They got that the life isnt about good or bad its much more tricky.
I should play some tw games before talking about them, but it sounds like all endings are mixed bags just like deus ex ones.
I think some user said C2077 will be story driven and that's fine to me, however to get a Steam Achievement you' ll probably have to create your own story through the game to get there. That's the kind of choice and consequence about replayability, i.e. make different choices and see different endings. That's different from the kind of choice and consequences about settings behaviour because this one will affect a gameworld which will react. You can go around and, for instance, get your hands on some gang's drug lab and expect some rivals to show up sooner or later. It's about making a city believable rather than see who's going to die through the game.
Excellent example! I am avid Thief fan, if it is possible with in game play limits I always try to do "ghost" run. In DX:HR I did just that, stealth all the way through (with exceptions of mandatory boss fights) at that point I stopped for a long while, I knew that I could easily go through that area without ever being notice but did I want to? I had a choice either to fight or leave, with everything that has happened in the game I felt that I had to stay and fight now that's good design (at least in my opinion). The fact that I could and did fight in a non lethal way is silly vanity.
EDIT:
With more thought on the issue I think that violent acts should be there and the feel of the game should be crude and harsh but not the gameplay. Convincing a beefy drughead that a person was hitting on/insulting his girlfriend or exposing how a person have cheated and stolen money from big criminal organization is as good as death sentence but might require different play style like conversation, infiltration, hacking or placing evidence.
I think the outcome of player actions need to be forceful rather than the action it self.
Vanity? Yes, OK.
Silly? No. Video games are about entertainment, and they're expensive. I really don't see anything in the slightest bit wrong in someone trying to squeeze another playthrough out of a game by setting themselves some form of challenge, however unrealistic.
I meant silly vanity not that the choice to do it is silly but rather that in DX:HR specifically lethal takedown or non lethal takedown are identical
Non-lethal takedown is worth more XP! And safer!
I think silly often applies, Dragon, in the sense that in certain themes and stories it can encroach on the ludicrous to have certain options available. Imagine the CoD Modern Warfare series with a talk-your-way-through option. Or Psychonauts, where you can kill everyone and everything.
This replayability-at-all-costs ( more costs?) mode is often what gives us such crappy multiplayer, too. I'm all for people eking out that last erg of fun somehow, but let them do it within the setting, gameplay and theme boundaries of the game, not by having transparently unrealistic game options welded onto the story.
I think silly often applies, Dragon, in the sense that in certain themes and stories it can encroach on the ludicrous to have certain options available. Imagine the CoD Modern Warfare series with a talk-your-way-through option. Or Psychonauts, where you can kill everyone and everything.
This replayability-at-all-costs ( more costs?) mode is often what gives us such crappy multiplayer, too. I'm all for people eking out that last erg of fun somehow, but let them do it within the setting, gameplay and theme boundaries of the game, not by having transparently unrealistic game options welded onto the story.
I can see a pacifist play through in the sense that you don't directly harm your opponent, rather you can do other things to take them down such as hire an assassin, or destroy their reputation, have their families whacked, destroy their lives and... well stuff...
But I don't think a "good guy" pacifist play through works in the setting. I would imagine one who did not kill people would very quickly find himself being pursued by those whose lives he so graciously spared.
But I don't think a "good guy" pacifist play through works in the setting. I would imagine one who did not kill people would very quickly find himself being pursued by those whose lives he so graciously spared.