Poll - How much should combat there be in CP2077?

[Suhiira]

Poll - How much should combat there be in CP2077?

In the hopes that someone at CDPR visits these forums once in a while and occasionally takes note of (some of) the topics discussed and they have some effect on the development of CP2077 I'd like to start a discussion on how much combat should figure into CP2077.

This is NOT intended as a discussion of how to implement combat (overhead, third-person, first-person), what sorts of weapons and equipment should be in the game, or even what character skills should exist and how, or if, they're used in combat. We already have threads covering all the above topics.

Should combat be a large and mandatory portion of CP2077s content?
Should it be an option one can choose but other options that are equally productive exist?
Should most combat be "light" (handguns/SMGs vs street punks) or "heavy" (rocket launchers and gattling guns vs SWAT)?
Should characters get XP for killing opponents, thus making it a mandatory character leveling requirement (assuming the game has levels)?

 

[blank_redge]

Sometimes necessary, but usually not.

There's a TON of games on the market that allow for the solution of the immediate problem as shooting your way through it.

I'd like other options besides direct combat, even if it's leaving mines in an area, and baiting someone into 'em.

If there's an experience / Improvement Point reward system, I think the player should be rewarded equally for combat / non-combat solutions. The player should get more XP / IP for non-combat, for those situations that are better solved by non-combat.

 

[Sardukhar]

I'm totally not telling what I picked.

WHY can't we see who voted on what, Suhiir? WHYYYY? I wish to make fun of carebears!

 

[Suhiira]

I'm totally not telling what I picked.

WHY can't we see who voted on what, Suhiir? WHYYYY? I wish to make fun of carebears!

Because I don't think it's anyone's business who voted for what.

 

[Sardukhar]

Because I don't think it's anyone's business who voted for what.

Obviously, you hate democracy.

 

[kofeiiniturpa]

I think combat should largely be where the player finds it to be a plausible course of action, and most often presented not as a random event out of the blue, but as a consequence of the PC's previous immediate or from further back actions. And combat should be considered a serious matter that has consequence and reactivity beyond who gets killed or hurt and who wins; ramifications between the PC and the party/parties that are a part in the engagement. Something to make the player think a bit before jumping in and start shooting at others.

The effect I'm after is that if the player builds a character to whom 90% of their story consists of shooting people, they will find plenty of combat to take part in; but also if the PC is built to be of less physically aggressive nature, he can find ways to bypass most situations and has activities of other kind. More combat oriented PC's might find events, places, and even quests that are suited to their character, but be blocked off from certain other stuff where sublety or more peaceful solution is called for (eg. a quest giver might not give a quest about negotiation to a gunslinging solo; an idealistic doctor might not want to sell and install augments to a person he believes will use them to harm people regardless of whom they are to be hurting); a character not suited for combat is obviously not going to be able to handle quests that require expertise in killing people efficiently; an all-arounder might be able to get a good taste of everything, but never reach the full heights of a specialized character. There should be tangible consequences from the way you choose to play.

I also don't think combat should yield XP, it just leads to a grind. The game, imo, should be more objective based in that regard (and the amount of unavoidable combat adjusted so that it doesn't become tedious and unrewarding because of the amount of it). There could be some sort of subtle way of learning through use, like reducing IP cost of the next level of the skill, but nothing so dramatic that it can be effortlessly exploited by sniping civilians from a hideout or grinding through every possible mob and gang out there.

So having that said, it's hard to vote, since I think the amount of combat should be (for the most part) the result of the way one plays and builds his/her character -- but I guess the top most option is the most fitting (<20% Combat should be an option not a requirement). The most fun PnP sessions I remember back when we played, were the ones where I couldn't fight at all and needed to figure things out through other means or just escape the situation/mission because my character wasn't up for it or was ill equipped due to focusing on other matters than combat.

 

[Calistarius]

A question... what exacly classify as "combat" in this case?

Is it all types of attacks made by you or the enemy that result in either injury or being knocked out etc? Is it only combat if the opponent is aware of it happening and is fighting back? Etc.

Would it really be considered combat if you could sneak up on every single opponent and knock them unconscious (so not killing them or injuring them seriously), or the use of a dartgun/weapon that can have you put people to sleep from range, or other simmilar none-leathal "weapons" or items... all without any of the other opponents noticing it happening... so basicly the none lethal way you could play most of Deus Ex: Human Revolution.

Just wondering, since how I would answer would depend highly on what certain things in such a question would mean.


Also... booo on you for not putting a 50/50 option... since now I am sitting here strongly hesitating if it should be 40 or 60%.

There is also another thing I wish you had put in (about the possability to solve almost all situations in any way you wish to)... but when I thought about it I realize that would really be a compleatly different question then, compared to the one you have posed us with here.

 

[Suhiira]

For the sake of this discussion let's use a simple definition of "combat", any attack on or by a character intended to cause physical harm.
This means using hacking to lock guards in their barracks or chemistry to create a knock-out gas would not be classified as "combat".

There's no 50/50 option on purpose :teeth:

 

[LexiiO]

I voted 60% while my heart said 40, after all Sard is always yelling at people about how violent 2020 is.

 

[matsif]

I voted 60% because I tend to be more combat oriented in games. While I like stealth from time to time, just blasting your way through everything is usually more fun to me.

That said, I'd prefer if almost everything had the option to stealth through and not kill anyone, or just run in guns blazing and wreck everything you see. One way may be more efficient than the other, but at the same time sometimes when things get frustrating the only answer is all out mayhem or complete silence. DX and DX:HR both generally had good options for both and I never felt that in either case I was limited to doing only one or only the other.

Content wise, this means that the game doesn't end up being something where charging in with big guns is always the best choice though. It may be good for some things, but horribly difficult for others. If the content is designed for player choice rather than forced anything, all around it will be deeper and better off.

 

[Sardukhar]

I voted 60% while my heart said 40, after all Sard is always yelling at people about how violent 2020 is.

Heh. I voted 40%.

IT IS TO LAUGH.

Partly this is -because- CP2020 is so violent. If you have to fight 40% of the time in FNFF circumstances, you're probably going to die sooner or later. Sooner. Remember, a .22 to the arm can put you into Serious wound level (30% of the time, before BTM if any), leave you in shock and you can bleed out while lying there staring up at the sky.

Or, it might do little damage at all. Just so possibly nasty in the PnP.

So, since I'll be playing on ULTRA HARD CORE SARD MODE, yeah, 40% is as high as I want to go. Even 20%..I debated that and then realised Sue and I might vote the same. Ugh.

 

[chriswebb2020.736]

I'm refraining from voting, because I want a lot of violence in the game, fights and combat situations everywhere, but at the same time it should almost always be avoidable, (but then we all know that sometimes it really is unavoidable.)

 

[Bellator Pius Gratus]

A question... what exacly classify as "combat" in this case?

Is it all types of attacks made by you or the enemy that result in either injury or being knocked out etc? Is it only combat if the opponent is aware of it happening and is fighting back? Etc.

Would it really be considered combat if you could sneak up on every single opponent and knock them unconscious (so not killing them or injuring them seriously), or the use of a dartgun/weapon that can have you put people to sleep from range, or other simmilar none-leathal "weapons" or items... all without any of the other opponents noticing it happening... so basicly the none lethal way you could play most of Deus Ex: Human Revolution.

Just wondering, since how I would answer would depend highly on what certain things in such a question would mean.


Also... booo on you for not putting a 50/50 option... since now I am sitting here strongly hesitating if it should be 40 or 60%.

There is also another thing I wish you had put in (about the possability to solve almost all situations in any way you wish to)... but when I thought about it I realize that would really be a compleatly different question then, compared to the one you have posed us with here.

This.

What is considered combat? A combat situation to me means that opponents are both aware of it being a combat situation/firefight. After that is cleared up there is the difference in using non-lethal and lethal weapons or strategies, but it's still combat. There is also the issue of avoiding combat entirely, either choosing to engage enemies and take them out unawares, or choose to sneak by them.

I'd say go with Deus Ex the original or Human revolution. I don't remember Invisible war that well but I guess that one too.

Let players choose to shoot it out, talk their way past, or simply sneak by or hack things.


Player choice victory is the way to go. :happy:

 

[Sardukhar]

Player choice victory is the way to go. :happy:

Problem with that is, it gives players an easy-out from hard choices. If you can talk your way out of everything, it's not a very grim and gritty game, is it? If you can convince murderous gang members - who hate you - not to murder you because you say the right things, well, that kind of jars in a Dark Future setting.

Sometimes your choices have consequences and I don't think you should be able to sneak or talk your way past a fight you earned.

In this case, I prefer theme to be more important and sometimes in cyberpunk, things get ugly and bloody.

 

[Suhiira]

All depends how difficult the non-combat solutions are to achieve.

Murderous gang members? IF your negotiation skills are good enough they take one or more of your party hostage and you have to go collect a ransom in cash and/or drugs to get them back. Hardly an "easy way out" as bullets are a LOT cheaper.

 

[dragonbird]

I'm refraining from voting, because I want a lot of violence in the game, fights and combat situations everywhere, but at the same time it should almost always be avoidable, (but then we all know that sometimes it really is unavoidable.)

What you said.
Good thing you've re-emerged, it saved me the effort of saying it.

 

[Bellator Pius Gratus]

Problem with that is, it gives players an easy-out from hard choices. If you can talk your way out of everything, it's not a very grim and gritty game, is it? If you can convince murderous gang members - who hate you - not to murder you because you say the right things, well, that kind of jars in a Dark Future setting.

Sometimes your choices have consequences and I don't think you should be able to sneak or talk your way past a fight you earned.

In this case, I prefer theme to be more important and sometimes in cyberpunk, things get ugly and bloody.

Oh I'm with you on that, especially "a fight you earned" part. That was poetry! ^_^ But instead of 100% shooter with no other options than shooting at everything and everyone, or 100% sneak 'em up where you fail for being spotted, you should be able to choose your battles. Maybe not all, but some, as well as different strategies, weapons, and what have you.

If a developer take these choices from me(CDPR would never do that) I'm not interested to play the game. It simply isn't for me.

I would not call sneaking in Deus Ex Human Revolution as an "easy way out" from hard choices. It's not as you avoided all confrontations or conversations. Sneaking however did net you more XP for exploring as well as staying your hand and using non-lethal weapons.

I never shy away from the harder and more challenging routes, nor do I shy away from a firefight if it means that I'm saving or helping someone I find innocent. Those murderous gang members you mentioned, yeah, they're dead if they are attacking me or anyone else, unless they somehow realise whom they're up against. And I look forward to the consequences you mention.
What I mean with player choice victory: ) is the freedom to deal with situations how you damn well please and not be funnelled down a path were you are literally playing a rail-shooter and have to use that weapon, that equipment, go that way and do look at that explosion!!!! Yeah, I'm not into rail-shooters like that, but then again I've never seen CDPR giving you but one choice in their games. This is an RPG after all right? You make choices. Consequences follow.

Now I'm new to this franchise and have absolutely no idea of the different player styles/characters in the Cyberpunk universe. But I do know of consequences in games, and love them, and look forward to get some hard choices to choose from. It's CDPR, they know what they're doing. :happy:

For instance, if I(and this is me) play as a police and see some punks willing to rob and murder or rape or go berserk among people, killing innocents, I wouldn't stand idly by eating donuts. If the police captain give the order to stand down, I wouldn't. I would gladly meddle and stand by that choice. I'd like to think so anyway, it would be nice with some really effin hard choices.

Even playing as a more criminal element, stumbling upon this situation, I would gladly meddle. Even if it meant me failing my current mission(say a opportune moment to steal) and the cash included. Yeah, I got issues with people hurting other people and it always reflect on my playstyle.

You know the trailer with the woman using those "praying mantis-blades" killing(unless she was framed) fourteen people I would gladly meddle, no matter what kind of character I play. I would love to solve some plot, murder mystery, or dig deeper regarding the how, the why and the who. But most of all, sadly, I probably wouldn't have hesitated to pull the trigger in the first place, saving as many of the victims as I could. If I could.

Ergo, by blowing her brains out the consequence of my behaviour and killing the woman, would be that I never got some important info from her, or even a new police partner, or what have you. Hell, maybe I end up being the none the wiser henchman, tying up loose ends, and acting unawares as a proxy for the bad guys. I just hate being used. :angry:

Other consequences for choosing differently, sneaking, killing, helping or not, would perhaps be that you never ran into certains npcs that could have helped you later. Or you missed out on something else, important info that could've saved you or others. I come to think of the original Witcher game here, and when you are doing the autopsy with Shani. The outcome of that chapter depend not only on choices but also how curious you are. I loved that.

No matter what kind of game we'll get, I know I'll be very very curious and do my fair share of exploring.

I have no illusion a game like Cyberpunk 2077 won't have it's share of violence and shooting. Hell, I'm counting on it. If you can't reason or see eye to eye with everyone, especially those "murderous gang members" wanting to cash in a price on your head, I for one would gladly fight them. :fury:

Being forced to deal with the consequences that follow of course. ^_^

 

[Sardukhar]

I have no illusion a game like Cyberpunk 2077 won't have it's share of violence and shooting. Hell, I'm counting on it. If you can't reason or see eye to eye with everyone, especially those "murderous gang members" wanting to cash in a price on your head, I for one would gladly fight them. :fury:

Being forced to deal with the consequences that follow of course. ^_^

Ah, of course. Yep, that choice is what makes RPGs my favourite game option.

 

[Suhiira]

Yep, sometimes combat IS the "correct" option, but as said earlier I find it being the ONLY option for the vast majority of situations in a supposed RPG to be not only limiting but rather counter to the whole intent of an RPG. RPGs are ultimately about player choices ... and I don't mean choosing between an assault rifle and a light machinegun.

 

[Poet_and_Gentleman.598]

The thing with player choice is that it often weakens the narrative since in the second run you'll know much of the story already.

Alpha protocol had great player choice. On paper, it's perfect. But in practice, you had to replay it several times to uncover all the plot holes and it's just not fun esp. since the combat was lacklustre.

You don't have access to that part because.... you rolled a dice and it landed on snake eye which is what most CYOA end up as.It should be part of general gameplay instead of a hard coded dialogue option.

RPG is not about choice, it's about narrative/story.