Project Orion Wishlist

[GrimReaper801]

By the way,
what about if games were actually acted - like interactive films?

The game industry is moving in that direction with motion capture, face scanning, scans of real environment,...

What if such "games" were about 2-10 hours long and, in some instances reacted to the player's input (an actor would need to shoot multiple takes), and there were several minor and few major choices to make?

Such games would've got a much greater atmosphere and a believable (=physical) environment. It would be easier to integrate music (because the game would have longer sequences without any player interaction),...

It could very roughly work like this:
- about 5-20 minutes for a minor decision
- about 0-15 minutes for a minor dialogue choice
- about 1-3 hours for a major decision

It could have some new and interesting approaches that would compensate for the "lack" of story interactivity, such as:
- filming locations could be 3D scanned (or similar), and a player could pause the game and explore them (including e.g. reading open books, looking out of windows,...)
- a player could rewind or fast-forward (just as if watching a movie in a media player)
- a player could adjust stuff like cameras (scenes would be shot with multiple cameras), zoom in & out, apply colour filters,...
- there could be some "exploration mechanics", like e.g. clicking onto things and "inspecting" them,...
- ...

Also, there could be smaller and more detailed (packs of) "quests" sold as DLCs - every quest would be up to 30 minutes long.

What do you think?

Since you're asking...

For starters, what you're asking for already exists. There are interactive movies already, they're just very niche. Most people want games to be games, not movies in which they have a say here and there.

Secondly, the industry isn't moving in that direction. Everything you indicated is an effort to produce more lifelike representations in-games but the goal is not to take away the player's interactivity at all. If anything, people want more agency and interactivity not less.

That's not to say interactive movies shouldn't exist. There is a market for them but I certainly don't want CDPR to go that way.

 

[Netrunner2go]

By the way,
what about if games were actually acted - like interactive films?

The game industry is moving in that direction with motion capture, face scanning, scans of real environment,...

What if such "games" were about 2-10 hours long and, in some instances reacted to the player's input (an actor would need to shoot multiple takes), and there were several minor and few major choices to make?

Such games would've got a much greater atmosphere and a believable (=physical) environment. It would be easier to integrate music (because the game would have longer sequences without any player interaction),...

It could very roughly work like this:
- about 5-20 minutes for a minor decision
- about 0-15 minutes for a minor dialogue choice
- about 1-3 hours for a major decision

It could have some new and interesting approaches that would compensate for the "lack" of story interactivity, such as:
- filming locations could be 3D scanned (or similar), and a player could pause the game and explore them (including e.g. reading open books, looking out of windows,...)
- a player could rewind or fast-forward (just as if watching a movie in a media player)
- a player could adjust stuff like cameras (scenes would be shot with multiple cameras), zoom in & out, apply colour filters,...
- there could be some "exploration mechanics", like e.g. clicking onto things and "inspecting" them,...
- ...

Also, there could be smaller and more detailed (packs of) "quests" sold as DLCs - every quest would be up to 30 minutes long.

What do you think?

There are already interactive game-movies around like f.e „Erica“ (PS4)… it sounds great at first but becomes kinda boring after a few minutes… at least when I tried them : /

 

[Tarille]

what about if games were actually acted - like interactive films?

We already have had "Interactive film" games.

Genereally they don't do particularly well. There much more production costs and the whole... Video games are already the literal best story telling medium that exists. Why step back and go back to a one dimensional story telling medium like film?

Games can have film-like cinematography. As well as book-like literature. As well as music and radio. All while also being games which uniquely allow for user interaction at a core level.

Video games can already be literally every other medium all at once.

 

[akaddk]

Well, there is one, released no long ago, named Starfield, which put on player no real pressure to pursuit the main quest and let to player the freedom to do other things instead. But it turn out that the story itself, isn't really good (as expected^^).

You're conflating several things as one thing as well as not actually representing my argument faithfully.

Firstly, I didn't say to eliminate urgency altogether. I said that it doesn't need to be from the very beginning of the main quest line. In almost every RPG, there is very little ramping up. It's pretty much "Discover the threat, investigate the threat, OMFG THE THREAT IS CATASTROPHIC AND HAPPENING RIGHT NOW GO GO GO GO GO GO GO!!!!!"

That doesn't actually benefit the player or the game, especially when it is entirely artificial. There is zero consequence to ignoring the main plot in most of these games because there are all these other side quests that need to be done as they are what fill the vast majority of the game time play experience. And doing them after the main quest feels redundant since they ultimately contribute nothing to that plot and you, as the player, feel like you're 'done' with the game after the main quest.

Secondly, you're saying that it wasn't a good quest in Starfield. That is an entirely separate issue to whether or not to delay the urgency of the main quest. A bad story is a bad story irrespective of any other factor.

Beside, I think it don't bother most of players.

You've spoken to all of them?

BG3 which have the same kind of "urgency" than Cyberpunk wouldn't be such a succes if it does.

And you postulate this based on what, exactly?

 

[LeKill3rFou]

Secondly, you're saying that it wasn't a good quest in Starfield. That is an entirely separate issue to whether or not to delay the urgency of the main quest. A bad story is a bad story irrespective of any other factor.

I said "not really good", but it's subjective (and my opinion). Maybe better to say that the story is not very engaging on purpose (like it almost always was in Bethesda games) to let the freedom to the players to enjoy the open-world and side stuff.
No real urgency, so do what you want, when you want, no pressure.

You've spoken to all of them?

And you postulate this based on what, exactly?

You mean the "urgency"? Or the "success"?
Success : no one can deny that BG3 is a (great) success. If the story was bad (i.e the urgency really bothered/annoyed people), BG3 wouldn't have been as successful I guess (knowing that DnD/CRPG are generally "niche" games) and wouldn't have won as much awards.
Urgency : Well, if you played both games, I'm sure you're aware it's surprisingly similar.

But again, both games which have the same kind of urgency (Cyberpunk and BG3), a majority of players seem to like the story (i.e Steam Outstanding Rich Story award for Cyberpunk and all the awards won by BG3 this years).

I said that it doesn't need to be from the very beginning of the main quest line. In almost every RPG, there is very little ramping up. It's pretty much "Discover the threat, investigate the threat, OMFG THE THREAT IS CATASTROPHIC AND HAPPENING RIGHT NOW GO GO GO GO GO GO GO!!!!!"

Well... why do you think most of RPG (and most games if you ask me) do it?
Because, well it generally work

 

[GrimReaper801]

I said "not really good", but it's subjective (and my opinion). Maybe better to say that the story is not very engaging on purpose (like it almost always was in Bethesda games) to let the freedom to the players to enjoy the open-world and side stuff.
No real urgency, so do what you want, when you want, no pressure.


You mean the "urgency"? Or the "success"?
Success : no one can deny that BG3 is a (great) success. If the story was bad (i.e the urgency really bothered/annoyed people), BG3 wouldn't have been as successful I guess (knowing that DnD/CRPG are generally "niche" games) and wouldn't have won as much awards.
Urgency : Well, if you played both games, I'm sure you're aware it's surprisingly similar.

But again, both games which have the same kind of urgency (Cyberpunk and BG3), a majority of players seem to like the story (i.e Steam Outstanding Rich Story award for Cyberpunk and all the awards won by BG3 this years).

Well... why do you think most of RPG (and most games if you ask me) do it?
Because, well it generally work

While I agree with your overall point that this kind of urgency both works and clearly doesn't bother people much if at all, BG3's case is very different.

Yes, the story has a huge sense of urgency to it but it's doesn't have a mostly defined timeframe to it the way CP2077 does. Spoilers for those who haven't played BG3:

Spoiler: SPOILIES

BG3 constantly reminds you that the tadpole will turn you but it also constantly reminds you that it should have happened already but hasn't. It also quickly establishes that someone/something is protecting you against the tadpole's effect. Effectively negating the urgency. It defeats it's own urgency which I was a bit disappointed in personally.

The rest you don't know about until much later.

Meanwhile CP2077 quickly establishes that you have very little time and then let's you go on your merry way.

Additionally, while BG3 certainly has side quests, they're not nearly as "out of your way" as CP2077's. The vast majority of them are actually in your way. They're more of a detour towards the same destination while CP2077's structure allows you to go in a completely different direction which causes this narrative dissonance.

With that said, while I agree there is a narrative dissonance, it doesn't seem to impact most people's enjoyment of the game much if at all. I know it didn't affect mine. Most people seem to just make note of it and enjoy it nonetheless and I personally wouldn't care if they added a sense of urgency to Orion's story even if has the same flaw, as long as the narrative is good I'll enjoy it. I'd prefer if it didn't suffer from the same flaw but it's almost an unavoidable effect of trying to make your main storyline as engaging as possible while simultaneously offering the open world activities/structures that people both want and have come to expect.

 

[Tarille]

As far as the urgency argument goes... I think the crux is less the sense of urgency itself and more the reason behind the sense of urgency.

Since urgency is necessary to create motivation for a player (And character) to actually do something. Since if nothing is happening... Then why would anyone care to go and do a bunch of arduous tasks for no reason?

The issue arises when there's reason(s) that make it nonsensical for a character to do anything else. Like how CP2077 and BG3 both have the hook of "You have no time, you can drop dead any second!". Their short timeframes and focus on the characters own survival mean that in neither case does it make sense for any pragmatic person to bother with anything other than dealing with that bomb in their head.

Meanwhile, for things like DA:O or DD: DA you still are shoved into an urgent situation from the very beginning of the game. But side activities still make sense. Whether the Blightspawn are invading in DA:O or there's a dragon attacking people in DD: DA the end goal is you as a character want to help others by stopping this threat. But you can still extend this to helping others directly, in your journey to tackle the main threat since the overarching theme is still that your character is altruistic and wants to help people and while fighting off a bunch of bandits won't directly impact the main objective, it still helps the villagers that you're ultimately trying to protect.

The key is to make the urgency come from something that can still lend itself to doing side activities, whilst still being motivating enough for someone to care about. Something that often falls flat in some Bethesda titles, for example; In Skyrim... Alduin saves the player from being executed and the leaves them alone so long as they aren't doing main quests so why do I care to go do them? Or in FO4 the player's baby they've spent all of 40 seconds with and as such have no attachment to is kidnapped... Oh no... Anyways these settlements won't build themselves (Here we get the dichotomy between player motivations and character motivations. A character for sure would be super keen to get their child back. A player has no parental attachment to the child or feelings for the SO that gets murdered).

 

[LeKill3rFou]

While I agree with your overall point that this kind of urgency both works and clearly doesn't bother people much if at all, BG3's case is very different.

Yes, the story has a huge sense of urgency to it but it's doesn't have a mostly defined timeframe to it the way CP2077 does. Spoilers for those who haven't played BG3:

While I can agree it's a bit different, but "overall", the "urgency" is real.
I summarize a lot but :

Spoiler

- The first thing you hear from the narrator after reaching the sword coast, so only after a few minutes of playing : "You have a mind flayer tadpole in your head. It's a death sentence, the clock is ticking! You have to find a way/someone to get ride of it!"
- The whole Act 1 is about searching someone able to remove the tadpole.
- The whole Act 2, is no longer really to find someone to remove it, sure. But it's to find and destroy the heart of the absolute as fast as possible and the magic which protect the tadpole to, well... remove the tadpole.
- Not played Act3, barrely playable on Series X, so no idea how it goes

Beside, I would say the urgency seem even more "present", because :

Spoiler

Depending of the companion you selected obviously, but if Astarion or Lae'zel are in your team, each time you accept helping someone (tielfings/druids/pregnant woman/deep gnomes/...), they never forget to remind you (and to disapprove^^) that you have more important things to do than helping random people you just met.

So overall, I won't say it's really different. In my opinion, it's surprisingly similar

With that said, while I agree there is a narrative dissonance, it doesn't seem to impact most people's enjoyment of the game much if at all. I know it didn't affect mine. Most people seem to just make note of it and enjoy it nonetheless and I personally wouldn't care if they added a sense of urgency to Orion's story even if has the same flaw, as long as the narrative is good I'll enjoy it. I'd prefer if it didn't suffer from the same flaw but it's almost an unavoidable effect of trying to make your main storyline as engaging as possible while simultaneously offering the open world activities/structures that people both want and have come to expect.

Yep, it doesn't affect mine either. I rather prefer a good story with "fake" urgency like Cyberpunk, BG3 or even ME rather than a story a la Bethesda with no urgency but end to be shallow and rather boring (for me).

 

[GrimReaper801]

While I can agree it's a bit different, but "overall", the "urgency" is real.
I summarize a lot but :

Spoiler

- The first thing you hear from the narrator after reaching the sword coast, so only after a few minutes of playing : "You have a mind flayer tadpole in your head. It's a death sentence, the clock is ticking! You have to find a way/someone to get ride of it!"
- The whole Act 1 is about searching someone able to remove the tadpole.
- The whole Act 2, is no longer really to find someone to remove it, sure. But it's to find and destroy the heart of the absolute as fast as possible and the magic which protect the tadpole to, well... remove the tadpole.
- Not played Act3, barrely playable on Series X, so no idea how it goes

Beside, I would say the urgency seem even more "present", because :

Spoiler

Depending of the companion you selected obviously, but if Astarion or Lae'zel are in your team, each time you accept helping someone (tielfings/druids/pregnant woman/deep gnomes/...), they never forget to remind you (and to disapprove^^) that you have more important things to do than helping random people you just met.

So overall, I won't say it's really different. In my opinion, it's surprisingly similar

I have to disagree. Not that they aren't both urgent but that the urgency is equivalent. Even about your companions reminding you of the urgency. Because just like the narrative, they both remind you of the urgency and remind you that it isn't that urgent cause somehow you're special.

Spoiler: SPOILER

They remind you of the tadpole but also constantly touch on how weird it is that you haven't turned yet. Especially Lae'zel.

And you're missing two critical parts that differentiate between the two narratives and puts them worlds apart.

- A clear timeframe. CP2077 quickly establishes that V is supposed to die within a few weeks. This is not just urgent, it's almost immediate. Meanwhile, BG3's narrative tells you things are urgent. You're just told it will happen/should have happened. Even after act one, it's still just "hey you gotta do this quickly or things are going to go terribly" but there is no timeframe to it. You just have to stop it. Setting a timeframe to your urgency is very different. It's the same thing as being told "you have cancer, you'll die eventually if we don't act now" and "you have terminal cancer, you got two weeks to live unless you find a miracle cure". There is urgency in both but they are miles apart.

- The dissonance between what you are told and what you can do. CP2077's urgency is immediate yet you also are able, and almost encouraged, to engage in things that are just completely unrelated. Why would V logically want to engage in clearing NCPD events? There is no logical sense to it. It serves no purpose in V's survival to clear Watson of it's gang members. Especially if you are told "Rogue can help you, she is here" but you go waaaaaaaay over there in another completely different direction because Regina spotted a Cyberpsycho for you to save. BG3's side quests are all happening on your way to your objective and the vast majority of them are linked in some way to the main story.

To be fair, BG3 has a huge advantage on that second point. BG3 isn't an open world game the same way CP2077. It's far easier to create this feeling of side quests being on way to your objective in smaller, closed maps that only lead one way.

And Bethesda did try urgency once with Skyrim. It just also fell very flat. The dragons are coming!!!!! But not until you reach this point of the story! Then they really start attacking! But they are also pretty weak! But they will destroy the world! Maybe. Alduin will! Eventually! In other words, even when they try for urgency they end up half-assing it because they want you to go out and explore the world. As sad as it is, Bethesda hasn't written a compelling narrative since Morrowind lol.

 

[Guest 4732906]

• Customizable Vehicles - I hate that when I purchase a vehicle, I only have one color as an option even though I see them in many more colors on the streets

i want mods and skins.
i want clothing and customization options.
...

Post automatically merged: Jan 14, 2024

access to exo skeletons and enhancing body suits , if possible customizable.
i have a suggestion on how this would work if someone contacts me over dm.
i want to fight more armored tanks.
i want to see more robots present int the world.
i want to be able to speak freely in the community within the rules

 

[LeKill3rFou]

I have to disagree. Not that they aren't both urgent but that the urgency is equivalent. Even about your companions reminding you of the urgency. Because just like the narrative, they both remind you of the urgency and remind you that it isn't that urgent cause somehow you're special.

Ok, I guess we can agree to disagree

Spoiler

About companions, specially Lae'zel :
In fact, the first camp, she cut short the discussion, because talking would waste your rest time while you have to find her people.

Second camp : She don't know why it doesn't happen and it drive her mad. But it ultimately doesn't change a thing. She say that even if it didn't happen yet, it doesn't mean it won't happen, and so, it shouldn't change your main and only objective, which is finding the creche, the purification.

Then in the next camp(s) : She want to kill you, then the others and finally herself. Because she start to feel the change. Even after you met the guardian who "promise" to protect you (who arrive just in time to stop the transformation^^), at the morning, she say that we shouldn't believe a word from "him/her", because it must be an Illithid illusion/manipulation created by the tadpole. Again, it shouldn't change your main objective, finding the creche as fast as possible.

And way later, when you reach the mountains, only after few meter, she tell you that you have to find the creche fast, because if you don't, she will go alone.

And about Astarion, I avoided him in my last playthrough because each time you agree to help or do something else than your main objective, he disapprouve and make a comment that you have more important things to take care about, like remove (or at least find a way to control it) :
- Helping Zevlor and tieflings > disapprouve
- Helping Mayrina's brothers > disapprove
- Helping the myconids > disapprouve
- Helping deep gnomes > disapprove
- Finding Nere to get the lamp > disapprove
Ans so on....
With Gayle, Shadowheart and Karlach as a team, it's way better, they never make a negative comment and always agree to help people on your path.

Edit : I would say that instead of Cyberpunk, the urgency slowly move from saving your own life to saving the "world". Because, to quote Elminster, the Absolute is a greater threat than you can imagine. A threat to not only the sword coast or Faerûn, but the weave and even the fabric of the universe itself. The last thing you know in Act 2 is you must reach Baldur's Gate very fast, before the Absolute army.

But I agree about the open-world (and bethesda too^^)
Because it's not an open-world, side "stuff" in BG3 doesn't seem to be as detached as it feel in Cyberpunk, at worse, a little detour on your main path. Ok, I'll stop about BG3, I could talk about it all day long, we maybe went a bit far and on the OT edge^^

But originally it was simply to say that knowing how successful stories were (Cyberpunk and now BG3), I don't see any reason why writers would do it otherwise in their future games.
If something work, no reason to change it

 

[NoClass77]

More body types. I want to be able to play as a fat person.

 

[Netrunner2go]

More body types. I want to be able to play as a fat person.

sounds like:

 

[Guest 4732906]

is it weird that i want to play as rebecca?

 

[Netrunner2go]

is it weird that i want to play as rebecca?

No actually I want it too xD

edit: even more since CDPR decided that Berserk should be melee only since 2.0

 

[Guest 4732906]

tho i would love performance and visual upgrades / skins for cars and bikes.
also more modes of transportation.
robots to tinker with? i like robots i build e'm for fun.

 

[EldritchEntity]

The ability to play as female V again, except with a slightly different timeline where you're able to be together with Judy!

Far more activities to do with both your partner and in the city in general.

NC is so incredibly designed, detailed and has so many areas, big and small, just screaming for more to find and do, just to have more and more reason to spend 10k hours in the world!

Maybe flying cars, ala Bladerunner.

Visually, maybe a bit more of a slightly more gritty "photorealistic" look, to really add further to the realism and immersion.

 

[Toonen1988]

is it weird that i want to play as rebecca?

We have absolutely no information in what timeline "Orion" will be in. It can before or after 2076 and 2077. So, everything is possible. If the timeline is after 2077, we could still see something of Lucyna Kushinada. Maybe she will return with some other characters from 2077.

I even hope for this to be honest. I want to see more of certain characters that are still alive. And if "Orion" is before 2076, well, then maybe we will see some more of Rebecca.

Or maybe CDPR is going with completely new characters, time will tell when we have more information.

Maybe we get a sequel about Johnny Silverhand timeline.

 

[PSX2020]

Great ideas fellas. Personally i wish AI dialogue NPC and maybe side quests generation with AI too. Tools will be available at start in next gen RTX 5000 i think.

 

[rngleader]

The Witcher had Gwent. Cyberpunk needs Netrunner. Android Netrunner was a beautifully designed, critically acclaimed asymmetrical living card game based on Netrunner, which was set in the Cyberpunk universe and designed by Garfield of Magic fame. One player plays Corp trying to advance agendas, and the other player is the Runner thwarting their plans. This would be an amazing addition to the game and an opportunity for a spinoff.