Yet we have FPS definition to the games and we are avoiding to use it here because CD Projekt RED are afraid of something. And it's a good question why they are avoiding FPS when describing their game. Though now it's obvious that gameplay in the game is easily described as FPS. I might be wrong but I think they already confirmed that you can't complete the game without engaging in shooting. I agree that RPG can be both FPP and TPP but making it FPS it's very hard to avoid shooter stigma and make good RPG. Mostly because of the limitations of FPP. It's hard to track character progress when you can make headshots starting lvl 1 or if you are bad with aiming in FPS it wont change with higher lvl for you. Can be very frustrating.
- Status
Yet we have FPS definition to the games and we are avoiding to use it here because CD Projekt RED are afraid of something. And it's a good question why they are avoiding FPS when describing their game. Though now it's obvious that gameplay in the game is easily described as FPS. I might be wrong but I think they already confirmed that you can't complete the game without engaging in shooting. I agree that RPG can be both FPP and TPP but making it FPS it's very hard to avoid shooter stigma and make good RPG. Mostly because of the limitations of FPP. It's hard to track character progress when you can make headshots starting lvl 1 or if you are bad with aiming in FPS it wont change with higher lvl for you. Can be very frustrating.
Amen !
First Person has some minor advantages when using ranged weapons.
Third Person has some minor advantages when using melee weapons.
The key word here is "minor".
Perspective is really little more then a matter of preference, assuming equally well designed graphics and mechanics. We can all point to games that did one or the other well, and other games that did it poorly. Such comparisons are virtually meaningless.
And I'm pretty sure this is why CDPR is going out of it's way not to label CP2077 as an FPS. There are several common assumptions that go along with such a label, not the least of which is "RPG Lite".
I totally suck at FPS games to the point I don't even bother trying to play them anymore. But I'm taking CDPR at it's word that CP2077 will have some sort of non-FPS option.
Last edited:
We hear that "Smart Guns" in CP2077 seem to perform like some sort of target-seeking mini-missile. You need only designate a target and the gun determines the probability of a hit with no input from the player or character.
I stress ... we hear ... this is NOT verified.
And this is not how "Smart Guns" work in the CP2020 PnP.
CDPR has said there will be a way to conduct combat that is not reliant on player (vice character) skills, thus non-FPS.
My initial reaction to the FPP was this...
... now, this is not because that I hate FPP, but I just can't play FPP.
Few minutes in game and I will have a massive migraine attack. Not fun while you're trying to have fun.
However, I wanted to play CYBERPUNK 2077 sooooo much, that I will still be buying the game, and try to play it.
I am hoping that CDPR will reinvent FPP game play and I and many others with the same problem with FPP can and will enjoy playing this game. If the problem still persist, then may be some one, a mod wizard, will make a mod that will allow TPP gameplay.
... and getting slightly off topic...
As for The Collector's Edition, I weally weally weally want it to include a statue of the kneeling female cyborg with them spiky arm blades....................... Thank you so much.
... now, this is not because that I hate FPP, but I just can't play FPP.
Few minutes in game and I will have a massive migraine attack. Not fun while you're trying to have fun.
However, I wanted to play CYBERPUNK 2077 sooooo much, that I will still be buying the game, and try to play it.
I am hoping that CDPR will reinvent FPP game play and I and many others with the same problem with FPP can and will enjoy playing this game. If the problem still persist, then may be some one, a mod wizard, will make a mod that will allow TPP gameplay.
... and getting slightly off topic...
As for The Collector's Edition, I weally weally weally want it to include a statue of the kneeling female cyborg with them spiky arm blades....................... Thank you so much.
As most of you I was absolutely gutted when that CDPR dev said the game would be completely FPP. But the more I thought about it the more i calmed down. I'm 100% for FPP combat BUT I still want the option to walk around in TPP so we can see our character. If it means having designated TPP streets so be it. My suggestion is for the game to be TPP but whenever the action starts or something happens to V we immediately jump into FPP. I think that's the best option.
I'll admit freely that I was certainly hoping for TPP. I'll admit freely that I am still disappointed that TPP won't be an option.
But after learning more about the approach to the game, I now "get" why it's FPP-only for gameplay, and I'm not in the least put off by it.
While I generally prefer TPP, I've also played countless FPP games that I love. There are even a few that I just can't enjoy in TPP. (Like Thief: Deadly Shadows. The option for TPP is there, and it functions perfectly, but it completely ruins the "Thief" experience for me. I must be in FPP.) All of that is, of course, just opinion, but I think it makes a strong argument about how perspective helps to define a particular game design. An even better example might be -- can you imagine playing Doom in TPP? It might be fun, but I really don't think it would be as identifiable nor carry the impact of Doom anymore. Vice versa...can you imagine playing Shadow of Mordor or one of the Batman: Arkham games in FPP? The entire, defining energy of the game would be completely transformed...if not outright lost.
That's one of the major considerations for Cyberpunk, from what I gather. Which leads me directly to another detail I've wanted to address for a while:
_______________
"Immersion". I have grown to hate this word over time. It doesn't mean anything anymore. Or rather, it means so many different things to so many different people, that any actual meaning (in day-to-day usage) is almost wholly vestigial.
I know it's been used by the dev team on several occasions, but I do not believe that they were in any way trying to indicate that FPP vs. TPP will create a more immersive experience for the player. That's wholly subjective and up to individual people. (I played TW3 in TPP, and I was completely immersed, man. I couldn't possibly be any more immersed.) The "immersion" being discussed here is how immersed the character is in Night City and the world of Cyberpunk. Try to think of this as a film director considering whether to use a close-up shot vs. a wide shot. By pulling the camera in or out, it creates a different energy on the screen. A close-in shot, by the nature of the perspective, is necessarily more intimate and immediate. It brings the audience right into that character, their reactions, the subtleties of the emotions they're expressing, etc. A wide-angle shot is a totally different energy. It's creates a more sweeping sense of place, a grander scale, and focusing on the environment moreso than a particular character.
Each type of perspective is used for different things, but a film has to use the right perspective to tell the story that they're trying to tell. So, imagine a film like Momento or Pulp Fiction containing way more, wide-angle, establishing shots of each location, lots of crowd shots, lots of crane shots... That wouldn't have added anything to the films and would have probably felt awkward and out-of-place, since the dramatic action focused on the characters. Now imagine the Lord of the Rings or Saving Private Ryan without those same, wide-angle shots. It would have been really difficult to feel epic if the movies were a bunch of close-ups of the characters with no wide shots to show the scale of the locations and huge battles. Both films contained both types of shots, and both films contained intimate and impactful moments...but both styles of film focused on very different energies and executions to be effective. (Now, whether I prefer one over the other is my personal opinion, but it's a fact of reality that I can't create an intimate, character-focused experience with wide-angle shots, and I can't create an sweeping, epic experience with close-ups.)
So, focus of Cyberpunk's gameplay seems to be more close-up and personal. That says to me that there will be lots of character work and a strong focus on viewing the world from the intimate perspective of V him/herself. Doesn't mean there won't be sweeping action scenes or vistas of Night City from various locations, but the focus will be on the more immediate and vulnerable perspective of V within the larger world...rather than the more cinematic camera safely floating 15 feet behind Geralt. So, the perspective of V is more "immersed" in each environment than the perspective of Geralt was, by comparison. (And once again, whether the player feels more immersed by one or the other is wholly subjective.)
But after learning more about the approach to the game, I now "get" why it's FPP-only for gameplay, and I'm not in the least put off by it.
While I generally prefer TPP, I've also played countless FPP games that I love. There are even a few that I just can't enjoy in TPP. (Like Thief: Deadly Shadows. The option for TPP is there, and it functions perfectly, but it completely ruins the "Thief" experience for me. I must be in FPP.) All of that is, of course, just opinion, but I think it makes a strong argument about how perspective helps to define a particular game design. An even better example might be -- can you imagine playing Doom in TPP? It might be fun, but I really don't think it would be as identifiable nor carry the impact of Doom anymore. Vice versa...can you imagine playing Shadow of Mordor or one of the Batman: Arkham games in FPP? The entire, defining energy of the game would be completely transformed...if not outright lost.
That's one of the major considerations for Cyberpunk, from what I gather. Which leads me directly to another detail I've wanted to address for a while:
_______________
"Immersion". I have grown to hate this word over time. It doesn't mean anything anymore. Or rather, it means so many different things to so many different people, that any actual meaning (in day-to-day usage) is almost wholly vestigial.
I know it's been used by the dev team on several occasions, but I do not believe that they were in any way trying to indicate that FPP vs. TPP will create a more immersive experience for the player. That's wholly subjective and up to individual people. (I played TW3 in TPP, and I was completely immersed, man. I couldn't possibly be any more immersed.) The "immersion" being discussed here is how immersed the character is in Night City and the world of Cyberpunk. Try to think of this as a film director considering whether to use a close-up shot vs. a wide shot. By pulling the camera in or out, it creates a different energy on the screen. A close-in shot, by the nature of the perspective, is necessarily more intimate and immediate. It brings the audience right into that character, their reactions, the subtleties of the emotions they're expressing, etc. A wide-angle shot is a totally different energy. It's creates a more sweeping sense of place, a grander scale, and focusing on the environment moreso than a particular character.
Each type of perspective is used for different things, but a film has to use the right perspective to tell the story that they're trying to tell. So, imagine a film like Momento or Pulp Fiction containing way more, wide-angle, establishing shots of each location, lots of crowd shots, lots of crane shots... That wouldn't have added anything to the films and would have probably felt awkward and out-of-place, since the dramatic action focused on the characters. Now imagine the Lord of the Rings or Saving Private Ryan without those same, wide-angle shots. It would have been really difficult to feel epic if the movies were a bunch of close-ups of the characters with no wide shots to show the scale of the locations and huge battles. Both films contained both types of shots, and both films contained intimate and impactful moments...but both styles of film focused on very different energies and executions to be effective. (Now, whether I prefer one over the other is my personal opinion, but it's a fact of reality that I can't create an intimate, character-focused experience with wide-angle shots, and I can't create an sweeping, epic experience with close-ups.)
So, focus of Cyberpunk's gameplay seems to be more close-up and personal. That says to me that there will be lots of character work and a strong focus on viewing the world from the intimate perspective of V him/herself. Doesn't mean there won't be sweeping action scenes or vistas of Night City from various locations, but the focus will be on the more immediate and vulnerable perspective of V within the larger world...rather than the more cinematic camera safely floating 15 feet behind Geralt. So, the perspective of V is more "immersed" in each environment than the perspective of Geralt was, by comparison. (And once again, whether the player feels more immersed by one or the other is wholly subjective.)
Bear in mind FPS and FPP are different things. FPS = first person shooter. So a shooter game with shooter game play viewed from the first person perspective. FPP merely describes the perspective, or first person perspective. You can have an RPG with a first person perspective. The RPG component here is indicating the overall game play mechanics.
At some point players started translating "FPP" to "FPS". I can understand the reasoning because it all gets rather confusing. I've never really agreed with this way of viewing game genre's and perspectives. I can find countless "articles" claiming the perspective has to be X or Y for a specific game to work. Still, I don't agree with it. RPG games with the option of TPP or FPP don't suddenly stop being an RPG when the player swaps to FPP.
If I were to guess CDPR decided to clarify it's not an FPS because of player perception. Players, for whatever reason, started thinking FPP indicates action game or shooter.
I think that what many of us want (and with this we would settle for) is with a TPP option out of combat or the most immersive exploration. That is, TPP in the dead hours that many players enjoy between one mission and other mission: when we walk down the street with no intention of starting any mission, when we get up in our apartments and spend a few minutes doing nothing, or simply when we only pretend see the character that we have created in movement, away from the missions and the photography mode (too static and "dead" to be enjoyed in the same way).
Nobody can say that this would mean an excess of work to implement complicated animations or synchronize them with the existing animations in FPP. We are talking about simple animations such as walking and moving out of action, and when the action and the need of the other perspective arrive, the FPP recovers all the protagonism.
Nobody can say that this would mean an excess of work to implement complicated animations or synchronize them with the existing animations in FPP. We are talking about simple animations such as walking and moving out of action, and when the action and the need of the other perspective arrive, the FPP recovers all the protagonism.
Last edited:
Something I think might help a bit: In video game classifications, minute differences matter.
What is the difference between an action game and a shooter? A shooter is more heavily focused on guns. This is a minute difference, yet in implementation it is the difference in design focus between GTA and Call of Duty.
What is the difference between isometric perspective and god perspective? Isometric is focused entirely on one angle. In implementation, this results in the difference between Baldur's Gate and Harvest Moon.
These little categories exist to reflect design decisions, and in turn help inform them and inform customer expectation. If someone says "isometric RPG," you can expect something like Pillars of Eternity or Baldur's Gate and, in general, that's exactly what the developer set out to make. If I say "isometric shooter," you automatically know it's something like XCom. This is because, in general, "isometric" carries with it a certain amount of tactical focus that "god perspective" does not; a god perspective RPG is usually something like Harvest Moon or Animal Crossing, where the more simulationist-focus of god perspective games can be better taken advantage of.
There is no way CDPR does not know this or is in any way unaware of the implications of their choices as far as managing customer expectations. By choosing FPP and making it clear there will be shooter aspects, they are advertising this is going to be a game that will focus more on gun usage than GTA or Mass Effect; pulling the trigger is advertised as the assumed default for gameplay. Which is likely why so much of their media focuses primarily on all of the other things you can do aside from pulling the trigger, and why so much of our conversation ever since the second trailer has been arranged around how perspective factors into gun usage; without even thinking about it, we're falling into the "pulling the trigger is default gameplay" mindset just because we know it's an FPP with guns.
And, very likely, that same default mindset we're discussing is the one they fell into while designing it; it's FPP because it revolves so much around gunplay at default, even if there are options where bullets are not flying. TPP would have sent an entirely different message.
What is the difference between an action game and a shooter? A shooter is more heavily focused on guns. This is a minute difference, yet in implementation it is the difference in design focus between GTA and Call of Duty.
What is the difference between isometric perspective and god perspective? Isometric is focused entirely on one angle. In implementation, this results in the difference between Baldur's Gate and Harvest Moon.
These little categories exist to reflect design decisions, and in turn help inform them and inform customer expectation. If someone says "isometric RPG," you can expect something like Pillars of Eternity or Baldur's Gate and, in general, that's exactly what the developer set out to make. If I say "isometric shooter," you automatically know it's something like XCom. This is because, in general, "isometric" carries with it a certain amount of tactical focus that "god perspective" does not; a god perspective RPG is usually something like Harvest Moon or Animal Crossing, where the more simulationist-focus of god perspective games can be better taken advantage of.
There is no way CDPR does not know this or is in any way unaware of the implications of their choices as far as managing customer expectations. By choosing FPP and making it clear there will be shooter aspects, they are advertising this is going to be a game that will focus more on gun usage than GTA or Mass Effect; pulling the trigger is advertised as the assumed default for gameplay. Which is likely why so much of their media focuses primarily on all of the other things you can do aside from pulling the trigger, and why so much of our conversation ever since the second trailer has been arranged around how perspective factors into gun usage; without even thinking about it, we're falling into the "pulling the trigger is default gameplay" mindset just because we know it's an FPP with guns.
And, very likely, that same default mindset we're discussing is the one they fell into while designing it; it's FPP because it revolves so much around gunplay at default, even if there are options where bullets are not flying. TPP would have sent an entirely different message.
So, this should probably be said periodically:
CD Projekt Red has made their choice on perspective and is committed to First Person for Cyberpunk 2077.
Although you are welcome to discuss the merits of Perspectives in gaming and in CP2077, please do NOT mistake this for a Request thread or a "Pressure CDPR" thread. It is not that. Please do not try to turn it into that or raise false hopes because we have opened up discussion on this subject.
Cyberpunk 2077 is a First Person Perspective Role-Playing Game.
CD Projekt Red has made their choice on perspective and is committed to First Person for Cyberpunk 2077.
Although you are welcome to discuss the merits of Perspectives in gaming and in CP2077, please do NOT mistake this for a Request thread or a "Pressure CDPR" thread. It is not that. Please do not try to turn it into that or raise false hopes because we have opened up discussion on this subject.
Cyberpunk 2077 is a First Person Perspective Role-Playing Game.
Come on guys. I was just about to hit acceptance, the final stage in the grieving process and now here you are with all these great third person arguments trowing me right back to denial and bargaining.
They should have made a VR game and a
I respect that commitment , doesn't mean I'll buy . Fact , there is no controversy if game is announced in 3rd person none at all ,
...for you.
Personally, I just want to CDPR to create CP2077 to the fullest expression of their vision for the game. If they weighed the options and decided that FPP is the best fit for the game so be it. While it's cool to give them feedback about what you'd like to see, ultimately it's their call about whether or not that fits with their idea of their ideal game.
It's like coffee. Some people, like it, some people don't. Good coffee needs to be just that, and not watered down to appeal to those that don't normally drink it.
The same applies here. If you like what 2077 is upon release, buy it. If you don't, don't. There's no obligation between CDPR and you, either to make the game the way you want or for you to buy it if it's not.
Personally, I just want to CDPR to create CP2077 to the fullest expression of their vision for the game. If they weighed the options and decided that FPP is the best fit for the game so be it. While it's cool to give them feedback about what you'd like to see, ultimately it's their call about whether or not that fits with their idea of their ideal game.
It's like coffee. Some people, like it, some people don't. Good coffee needs to be just that, and not watered down to appeal to those that don't normally drink it.
The same applies here. If you like what 2077 is upon release, buy it. If you don't, don't. There's no obligation between CDPR and you, either to make the game the way you want or for you to buy it if it's not.
If they implemented a Fallout style VATS turn based combat system, it would essentially be a pure RPG. However, that being said..
First Person MasterRace
First Person MasterRace
That's the point their Vision of the game may be different from what some expected. In fact more i ear about this game and more i ear about the declarations popping around is less i believe this Vision will stay enough loyal to the pen and paper and will be just a themepark. (of course this is not a definitive statement it may change depending on how the game will be)
But i am sure that being forced in a prospective that limits customization and make it pointless that limits the gameplay in to a prospectively wrong aim and click is not going to make me enjoy or immersed enough because in the end is not rocked science of FPP only roleplay games are divided in two category such a Party based dungeon crawlers or shooters with roleplay elements.
To me avoid to implement a toggle between the two vision just because if during a conversation i will look away and the npc will react well sorry but is not good enough or even acceptable.
Now if the first person of cyberpunk will be a correct prospectively one and it will be reactive and dynamic at the envirovment is another matter but i honestly don't believe it will be at all.
FPP always been a subpar visual for fully fledged RPG unless you dive in the realm of dungeon crawlers or lite rpg shooters many of the old fantastic classic that today are still unmatched were isometric when we talk about cinematic rpg then third person.
FPP is a great thing in shooters and is a great thing to implement complementing a TPP but FPP only will be always subpar in a game that is supposed to be based on a pen and paper.
I can't immerse myself in the world while walking with a cam stuck on my chest that is a more personal thing but i honestly dislike the majority of FPP games because most of them are prospectively wrong and this creates a sense of plastic,fake,toy in all the game for me.
Also there is plenty of cyberpunkish FPS with lite roleplay elements around there is no need for another one.
But i am sure that being forced in a prospective that limits customization and make it pointless that limits the gameplay in to a prospectively wrong aim and click is not going to make me enjoy or immersed enough because in the end is not rocked science of FPP only roleplay games are divided in two category such a Party based dungeon crawlers or shooters with roleplay elements.
To me avoid to implement a toggle between the two vision just because if during a conversation i will look away and the npc will react well sorry but is not good enough or even acceptable.
Now if the first person of cyberpunk will be a correct prospectively one and it will be reactive and dynamic at the envirovment is another matter but i honestly don't believe it will be at all.
FPP always been a subpar visual for fully fledged RPG unless you dive in the realm of dungeon crawlers or lite rpg shooters many of the old fantastic classic that today are still unmatched were isometric when we talk about cinematic rpg then third person.
FPP is a great thing in shooters and is a great thing to implement complementing a TPP but FPP only will be always subpar in a game that is supposed to be based on a pen and paper.
I can't immerse myself in the world while walking with a cam stuck on my chest that is a more personal thing but i honestly dislike the majority of FPP games because most of them are prospectively wrong and this creates a sense of plastic,fake,toy in all the game for me.
Also there is plenty of cyberpunkish FPS with lite roleplay elements around there is no need for another one.
Last edited:
You hit the nail on the head with this... all of what you said is exactly how I feel. Even if it's not third-person combat, that simple downtime when you're just walking around enjoying the atmosphere that is the world, that is why I craved third person so hard with this game.
Oh well, the second a third-person mod comes out I will download it immediately, I couldn't care less about weird animations, I would only be using it for walking around anyway
.
As a coffee addict I love, and agree with, this analogy.
Until I found out about how they planned to implement "Smart Weapons" this is what I was pulling for and assumed they'd do.
And for the record I'd prefer it if they had.
Third person would be almost impossible to implement correctly at this point, the game has been built from the ground up for FPP. It would be so hard to achieve the absolute best possible first AND third person combat, with environments and systems (like a cover system) that work for both modes.. HOWEVER..
I can't see why an optional VATS style system for the RPG enthusiasts couldn't be incorporated. It would simply use raw statistics and some kind of difficulty scaling to essentially take control of the combat for a strategic, turn based style. CDPR are already good at this kind of thing, a game like Gwent revolves around this type of thinking, just because the engine is running crazy three dimensional graphics doesn't mean the underlying mechanics aren't there. Infact, incorporating a feature like this could have knock on effects, helping the team to balance the game more finely, without the distraction of real time elements, which could be tuned separately. Hmm.. I also dislike the middle ground approach, of having smart weapons, because they are just going to be too damn easy for FPS veterans. I think a VATS like system would come in the form of cyberware augments, that could potentially be upgraded. I wonder if a seperate thread should be created to discuss this idea.
- Status