Roleplaying VS MinMaxing in Cyberpunk: Discussion

+
In my opinion most modern video game RPGs don't get the roleplaying right, if you compare it to tabletop RPGs (Exception: Disco Elysium). Why? Because the roleplaying stops after the character creator and after that most players start playing for min-maxing – not specifically for builds (like in Dark Souls etc.) but to have the most options and possibilities in one playthrough. One example is the paragon-renegade-system in Mass Effect: Although I liked roleplaying a certain Shepard-character, I still had to make some decisions based on that meter because I knew, eventually if I'm not badass/diplomatic enough, some quests are going to fail. So I slowly gave up on roleplaying and made decisions based on colors in menus.

Now, I also think, that CDPR knows that and that they are trying to force us (=the players) – in a good sense – to roleplay. They already do it in The Witcher, for example:
a) You get way more EXP for quests then for random kills. I still remember getting off the horse to kill some wolves, seeing that the kills grant 1 EXP per kill (instead of, say, 200 for a small quest) and thinking: Wait, would Geralt of Rivia really stop to kill some wolves, if he doesn't have to? No, he wouldn't. So I did more quests, followed his story and that means: I roleplayed.
b) The consequences of most decisions are only visible much later, so you can't savescum and instead you make decisions based on what you feel is right, which in turn makes the players identify more with their character.

I've been reading and watching almost all previews that aired after Night City Wire and I found two aspects that almost everybody mentioned:
1. Being (positively) excited about the openness of the world and the quests
AND/OR
2. Being (negatively) overwhelmed by the openness of the world and the quests

I remember a quote by Miles Tost (Senior Level Designer) where he said, the main story is shorter than Wild Hunt, because they hope that people will replay the game more to see all the different possibilities that already start with the corpo/nomad/street kid-choice. And another quote by Pawel Sasko where he said that no quest can fail, which means: There's always a way to solve it, just some are better and some are worse and some take extra effort or a certain build.

What I think it comes down to is: CDPR is making a game where they truly want us to roleplay and create our character with his/her specific way through the story.
When I stop thinking about the need to see everything/all possibilities (like in example 2) I can get excited (like example 1) because no choice is wrong, because I play to make choices (or simulate them), not to always make right choices.

And I like that, a lot. What do you think?
 
Last edited:
And another quote by Pawel Sasko where he said that no quest can fail, which means: There's always a way to solve it, just some are better and some are worse and some take extra effort or a certain build.

What I think it comes down to is: CDPR is making a game where they truly want us to roleplay and create our character with his/her specific way through the story.
When I stop thinking about the need to see everything/all possibilities (like in example 2) I can get excited (like example 1) because no choice is wrong, because I play to make choices (or simulate them), not to always make right choices.

And I like that, a lot. What do you think?
yes thank GOD! this is exactly what I was hoping for. This was my biggest issue with The Witcher 3, is that you would try to roleplay, and then the game would punish you much later on with no possible way in or out, you would just get perma-locked out of certain quests of nowhere for no reason, and that was infuriating for me. If true, I love that there is always a way to finish the quest in Cyberpunk2077. This saves me from so much headache and heartache. This means, to me, that Cyberpunk2077 will be an even BETTER game than I had thought. SO EXCITED! :) (y)

On a very similar note, (for some reason this thread made me think of this too) I hope that min maxing isn't force in the way of clothing/armor, and weapon appearances. What I mean by this, is that I hope we can "equip" the clothing/armor/weapon customization visuals with the BEST stats, but separately and simultaneously "equip" the clothing/armor/weapon customization visuals that APPEAR THE BEST, to our personal opinions and tastes. This way I am never torn between choosing the armor or weapon or clothing or anything that has better stats, vs the stuff that looks the way I want to look. You feel me bro?

EDIT: in essence, I want to apply the best stats of my best stats gear, but always look like the gear that I like the look of the best.
 
Last edited:
Personally I choose my Roleplay then Min-Max so my character abilities actually match said Roleplay.
That's why I actually need to know what each stat do.
I relate with this strongly as well, I try to enjoy the story as much as possible and roleplay immensely to the point that I temporarily forget I'm playing a video game, but I also dedicate a very good amount of time to strengthening my character and preparing them for the challenges that await them. Sometimes, if the game allows, I roleplay that process as well and make it a part of the story my character/I am experiencing. I become my character. I do exercise in game. I pause game, do exercise in real life too. My character eats in game. I pause, I eat in real life.

No I don't shoot anybody or break any laws. That would be NOT cool.
 
What I mean by this, is that I hope we can "equip" the clothing/armor/weapon customization visuals with the BEST stats, but separately and simultaneously "equip" the clothing/armor/weapon customization visuals that APPEAR THE BEST, to our personal opinions and tastes. This way I am never torn between choosing the armor or weapon or clothing or anything that has better stats, vs the stuff that looks the way I want to look. You feel me bro?

Yes, I know what you mean and I hope so too! I listened to the PC Gamer Podcast (https://www.pcgamer.com/we-answered-a-bunch-of-questions-about-the-cyberpunk-2077-demo/) and if I understood it right, you can find and buy lots of clothing and you can change its appearance. And it's confirmed that you can craft items, so I guess, crafted items/clothing will be strong AND you can change their appearance, too, like the witcher armors in TW3 (Blood&Wine).

I'm pretty sure that there will be a lot of clothing choices. It just wouldn't be a great fit in a game that's so much about style if there were THE best three armors for the endgame, you know, like, the black slick one for assassin style characters etc.. MinMaxing will always be a part of RPGs, but it should never grow to be its only purpose.
 
In my opinion most modern video game RPGs don't get the roleplaying right, if you compare it to tabletop RPGs (Exception: Disco Elysium). Why? Because the roleplaying stops after the character creator and after that most players start playing for min-maxing – not specifically for builds (like in Dark Souls etc.) but to have the most options and possibilities in one playthrough. One example is the paragon-renegade-system in Mass Effect: Although I liked roleplaying a certain Shepard-character, I still had to make some decisions based on that meter because I knew, eventually if I'm not badass/diplomatic enough, some quests are going to fail. So I slowly gave up on roleplaying and made decisions based on colors in menus.

Judging from Witcher 3, I don't think roleplayers need to be too worried. W3 can be pretty easy in terms of combat (so you dont NEED to minmax as much). I am confident that CP2077 will be similar, in that it will be easy enough to run poor or non-optimal builds without trouble. Especially if theres like, different difficulty settings.

CDPR made it a point to highlight smartguns in CP2077 which basically fire self-guided missiles so you dont even need aim as such.
 
I am confident that CP2077 will be similar, in that it will be easy enough to run poor or non-optimal builds without trouble. Especially if theres like, different difficulty settings.

That's only one way, optimal builds for combat encounters being not required. But I really hope it won't be the same equation every time, like:

You're a lethal combat character? --> "Go in guns blazing through the front door" (I honestly can't hear this buzzphrase anymore)

You want to be non-lethal? --> stealthy hacker all the way, there's your air vent, at the backside of the building (which even the combat characters will use, because it is better; the heavily guarded front door is just there to make you feel clever by not using it)

I want to be able to solve a mid-game quest non-violently because my character is so strong or known for his violence, that some street gang just gives up on fighting, when hearing that V is coming after them. That would be cool.
I really found it immersion-breaking in Wild Hunt, when a nest of bandits started attacking Geralt, he killed 5 of 6 by dismembering them and the sixth goes: "Ha! Now it's just the two of us!" Really? Wouldn't you rather run away in shock?

I also meant MinMaxing as a game strategy to keep all options available in a playthrough, not necessarily combat-wise only. I'd love to be able to really choose one specific roleplay-build and still have multiple options for quests. That would be a real roleplaying experience.
 
In theory CP2077 is an RPG (I have my own, frequently stated, opinions on that) thus if you choose NOT to play it as an RPG by concentrating on min-maxing don't expect it to be something the game handles well, it's not designed for it.
 
In theory CP2077 is an RPG (I have my own, frequently stated, opinions on that) thus if you choose NOT to play it as an RPG by concentrating on min-maxing don't expect it to be something the game handles well, it's not designed for it.

I'm sorry, I don't understand what you are saying exactly (sorry, English isn't my native language). Can you elaborate, please?
 
I'm sorry, I don't understand what you are saying exactly (sorry, English isn't my native language). Can you elaborate, please?
When you design a game certain basic concepts and parameters need to be decided before you can even really start.
Are there classes? How do they differ? Are there levels? What's the difference between "low" and "high" level? Are there character stats? What do they do? Etc. Etc. Etc.

Min-maxing revolves around the idea that there's some combination of class/stats/skills/perks/equipment that when combined produces THE OPTIMUM result. To an extent this is true, but it's almost always accidental side effect of the games design (stats, skills, equipment, etc.) not something you're intended to strive for. Min-maxing as a whole is a "stroke your ego" concept ... "Look what I can do! I'm better then you!". It's not about the gameplay per say but the ego of the player (yes, some, a very few, people min-max just because they enjoy statistic crunching, but they're a tiny minority). It's most prevalent in PvP gameplay because there it actually matters, but in a PvE game it's fairly irrelevant.
 
Judging from Witcher 3, I don't think roleplayers need to be too worried. W3 can be pretty easy in terms of combat (so you dont NEED to minmax as much). I am confident that CP2077 will be similar, in that it will be easy enough to run poor or non-optimal builds without trouble. Especially if theres like, different difficulty settings.

CDPR made it a point to highlight smartguns in CP2077 which basically fire self-guided missiles so you dont even need aim as such.
I really disliked Witcher3 combat. It was impossibly clunky and enemies had the game breaking ability to interrupt/cancel my attacks before I even started the attack, resulting in my input not translating into an action on screen. Geralt just getting stuck standing without attacking or blocking for a small but very important frame of time, meanwhile I'm bashing the keyboard to pieces and screaming at the screen. It made me feel ill from the level of frustration it gave me.
 
Too many "RPGs" today give you like 2-3 dialogue options max (vs the ton of them from back in the silent protagonist days) and 1-2 ways to finish a quest usually either by going somewhere and killing everyone or by going there and killing the nameless mooks but sparing the "boss" that you talk to in a cutscene. How are you supposed to roleplay with that kind of limited setup? More dialogue options and more ways to solve your problems are definitely a must.
 
It's not about the gameplay per say but the ego of the player (yes, some, a very few, people min-max just because they enjoy statistic crunching, but they're a tiny minority). It's most prevalent in PvP gameplay because there it actually matters, but in a PvE game it's fairly irrelevant.
I disagree, I never did min maxing for ego in any video game, and I think myself and many others have always done it because the game essentially forces the player (not cyberpunk, just games in general that have min-maxing done in certain ways) to either use min-maxing, or be ineffective or less effective in battles or other forms of game play. It's sort of like this horrible feeling of being guided and funneled into a set of choices that are more effective, but less fun. (like skyrim, and many many other games)
 
I really disliked Witcher3 combat. It was impossibly clunky and enemies had the game breaking ability to interrupt/cancel my attacks before I even started the attack, resulting in my input not translating into an action on screen. Geralt just getting stuck standing without attacking or blocking for a small but very important frame of time, meanwhile I'm bashing the keyboard to pieces and screaming at the screen. It made me feel ill from the level of frustration it gave me.

As a former esports fighting game player, that sounds perfectly fine to me (enemy having the ability to interrupt you). Without something like that you could just spam buttons and hammer through. With enemy attacks having the ability to interrupt you, you actually have to pay attention to what they are doing.

W3 combat was "okay", but it wasn't all that deep. Geralt had only couple different slash sequences with the sword and the sign-thingies on top of that. Its hack-and-slash style RPG, so you can't expect it to be too complex, but just spamming a button near-mindlessly three times to get your best attack sequence only merits a yawn from me.

I dont expect fighting in CP2077 to be any deeper, but at least theres more weapons, and I prefer just having cool cyber abilities instead. Combat will fill its purpose without frills or thrills. Modern players have the brain capacity to just spam single button many times to get their combat, and devs gotta let them play. After getting used to a fighting game character having upwards of 50 individual abilities or attack strings, MMO or hack and slash combat isn't going to get me excited.
Post automatically merged:

Min-maxing revolves around the idea that there's some combination of class/stats/skills/perks/equipment that when combined produces THE OPTIMUM result. To an extent this is true, but it's almost always accidental side effect of the games design

As long as there is variety in said class/stats/skills/perks/equipment, something is ALWAYS going to be objectively the best by some margin. There is no way around this, its just math. The best devs can do is to make the differences as small as possible.

The only case where there is no difference and thus possibility for min-maxing, is when there is only one choice. Everything would be the same.
 
Last edited:
As a former esports fighting game player, that sounds perfectly fine to me (enemy having the ability to interrupt you). Without something like that you could just spam buttons and hammer through. With enemy attacks having the ability to interrupt you, you actually have to pay attention to what they are doing.
Please re-read my comment.
 
Yes, its still the same as before. What about it?
Okay, basically, enemies were able to stun/block/cancel/interrupt Geralts attacks, not after they began, but before the player even pressed any key or input. Meaning that I would notice a moment where I could do an action/block/attack, and was in a position where no enemy attacks had yet begun their start. I would do an action, but the enemies would seem to have their actions secretly "qued up" but like in a hidden way not obvious to the player, that enemy move that had not yet begun on the screen of the game, would then retroactively break the laws of causality and stun/cancel/interrupt Geralt in the most obnoxious way possible, resulting in him just standing there unable to move or attack moments before being attacked by an attack that physically was not touching his body or even entering his personal space yet.

I am scared that this will appear in Cyberpunk2077, and no amount of min-maxing will save us. I hope they fixed that. I really worry.
 
Okay, basically, enemies were able to stun/block/cancel/interrupt Geralts attacks, not after they began, but before the player even pressed any key or input. Meaning that I would notice a moment where I could do an action/block/attack, and was in a position where no enemy attacks had yet begun their start. I would do an action, but the enemies would seem to have their actions secretly "qued up" but like in a hidden way not obvious to the player, that enemy move that had not yet begun on the screen of the game, would then retroactively break the laws of causality and stun/cancel/interrupt Geralt in the most obnoxious way possible, resulting in him just standing there unable to move or attack moments before being attacked by an attack that physically was not touching his body or even entering his personal space yet.

Out of curiosity, did you play on console or PC? Because I dont remember this happening to me, although my playtime with W3 is limited.

ps. In the original post you didnt mention your position nor other details, so it could've been you just didnt dodge the enemy attacks. Thats why I was dismissive at first.
 
Top Bottom