Sequel to 2077?

[Suhiira]

While mainstream success in most fields (movies, TV, art, books) hardly guarantees a deluge of half-arsed-milk-the-cash-cow products appearing shortly after a major success unfortunately the console/PC game industry has a long and inglorious history of doing just that.

That said I'd be amazed (as would CDPR I'm sure) if CP2077 made the kind of profits Warcraft or the Mario series did. I suspect it'll be very well received in the RPG market and less so in the FPS one. Unless they really want to alienate the majority of the RPG crowd - RPGers tend to prefer "tactical" to "action" combat. If you've been following the recent "Dragon Age: Inquisition" articles and vids you can see the majority of fans are quite pleased with the return to "tactical" (DA: O) combat vice the semi-debacle of DA: 2's more "action" oriented approach. While DA: 2 had a LOT of other "issues" besides the combat system, that was a significant one. And the RPG market has never been a mass-profit producer so I don't expect too many clones.

Short a screwing up far more then I think they're even capable of CDPR will make a nice profit and win a few awards with CP2077 and continue to do their thing ... make good but not mass market games.

 

[Sardukhar]

Witcher 2, as of 2012, sold 1.7 million copies.

"According to The Witcher facebook page, the franchise has sold more than 7 million copies of both games to date."

That's mass-market. Millions? Yeah. I -wish- I wasn't a mass-market business that had those numbers. Those are mass-profit numbers. So are Fallout 3, Skyrim, MAss Effect, etc.


I'd also dispute that RPGers prefer tactical to action combat. For your given definition of RPGer, perhaps, but the millions of people that play and love Diablo series, World of Warcraft, Fallout 3 and NV and Mass Effect, and consider themselves RPGers, seem pretty happy with action combat.

I wouldn't use forums as a measure of wide-spread popularity in a game mechanic- and I doubt you really do either.

I fully expect CP2077 to be a massively popular game and spawn a wave of clones and sequels. The time is right.

 

[kofeiiniturpa]

I'd also dispute that RPGers prefer tactical to action combat. For your given definition of RPGer, perhaps, but the millions of people that play and love Diablo series, World of Warcraft, Fallout 3 and NV and Mass Effect, and consider themselves RPGers, seem pretty happy with action combat.

While that is true, there is a question floating in the air, would the those people be adverse to well designed tactical approach since they are not really being served such as we speak?

Kickstarter is producing some excellent games that are fairly succesful despite that their budgets are shoelace grade by comparison to the mass market megagames. Think about what could've become of D:OS or Wasteland 2 if they ended up having 2-5 times the budget they had and still retained their core design philophies.

I would hope that CDPR doesn't take the "easy way out" with their design just because the mainstream is being accepting of McRPG's that are disguising rudimentary action games behind handicapped and nigh dysfunctional character sheets and some CYOA elements in the narrative.

 

[Hoplite_22]

While that is true, there is a question floating in the air, would the those people be adverse to well designed tactical approach since they are not really being served such as we speak?

Kickstarter is producing some excellent games that are fairly succesful despite that their budgets are shoelace grade by comparison to the mass market megagames. Think about what could've become of D:OS or Wasteland 2 if they ended up having 2-5 times the budget they had and still retained their core design philophies.

I would hope that CDPR doesn't take the "easy way out" with their design just because the mainstream is being accepting of McRPG's that are disguising rudimentary action games behind handicapped and nigh dysfunctional character sheets and some CYOA elements in the narrative.

I also hope they aren't going to waste time and money with out dated and archaic combat systems for the sake of being "tactical" Because after playing things like Wasteland 2 and Shadowrun Returns I miss the engagement I get from real time systems.

It really is a personal preference, not one is empirically better than the other.

 

[kofeiiniturpa]

I also hope they aren't going to waste time and money with out dated and archaic combat systems

Nobody wants that. *shrug*

 

[Sardukhar]

I would hope that CDPR doesn't take the "easy way out" with their design just because the mainstream is being accepting of McRPG's that are disguising rudimentary action games behind handicapped and nigh dysfunctional character sheets and some CYOA elements in the narrative.

As do I, of course. I'm always hoping to see gameplay - combat and otherwise - moved ahead. I liked FO3 and Mass Effect combat, (except ME 2, which consisted so much of Hide Behind Box, more even than the other two), but I hope that regardless of how CDPR goes for 2077 gameplay and tactics, 2080 will be an improvement. Dare we hope for both immediate AND tactically satisfying?

 

[Poet_and_Gentleman.598]

While that is true, there is a question floating in the air, would the those people be adverse to well designed tactical approach since they are not really being served such as we speak?

Kickstarter is producing some excellent games that are fairly succesful despite that their budgets are shoelace grade by comparison to the mass market megagames. Think about what could've become of D:OS or Wasteland 2 if they ended up having 2-5 times the budget they had and still retained their core design philophies.

I would hope that CDPR doesn't take the "easy way out" with their design just because the mainstream is being accepting of McRPG's that are disguising rudimentary action games behind handicapped and nigh dysfunctional character sheets and some CYOA elements in the narrative.

Or they could actually innovate instead of looking toward mid-90s philosophies.

(Oculus Rift + dynamic economy + FPS mechanics)

 

[Garrison72]

I fully expect CP2077 to be a massively popular game and spawn a wave of clones and sequels. The time is right.

I feel the same, especially regarding the timing of a Cyberpunk rebirth across all media, and I think CDPR is aware of this. They could have picked anything, but what is currently unexplored and as relevant as Cyberpunk? Both fantasy and space opera are done to death. I don't expect it to go fully mainstream but I do think it will completely eclipse The Witcher's popularity, through no fault of that title.

 

[Suhiira]

I wouldn't use forums as a measure of wide-spread popularity in a game mechanic- and I doubt you really do either.

Forums are about the last thing I'd base it on.
Game sales and more importantly after-sale game longevity are what I look at.
You obviously want to sell as many copies of a game as possible because that's where you make your money, but "pay to play" MMOs can afford to sell their games at or below cost because they can make their money with subscription fees. You could take the track Electronic Arts follows, sell the players half a game then charge them thru the nose for the rest as DLC available at, or very soon after, release. But that's not good for your companies reputation, EA gets away with it (in spite of lawsuits) because they're a 500# gorilla who obviously doesn't care what people think of them, after all it's PRs job to manage public image (humm ... anyone else reminded of Omni Consumer Products in RoboCop?).

Note: Now there's an interesting idea for player-made DLC for CP2077 ... taking down Electronic Arts!

One thing they could do was insure the first game in a series is WELL made and release DLC (3 to 6 months after initial release) and more importantly follow-up products that require the main game to play. Similar to the way Neverwinter Nights worked. That way once the primary, and expensive, work on the main game is done you can generate profits with follow-up game expansions.

 

[kofeiiniturpa]

Or they could actually innovate instead of looking toward mid-90s philosophies.

(Oculus Rift + dynamic economy + FPS mechanics)

It's funny you should mention mid-90's philosophies.

 

[Sardukhar]

Note: Now there's an interesting idea for player-made DLC for CP2077 ... taking down Electronic Arts!

One thing they could do was insure the first game in a series is WELL made and release DLC (3 to 6 months after initial release) and more importantly follow-up products that require the main game to play. Similar to the way Neverwinter Nights worked. That way once the primary, and expensive, work on the main game is done you can generate profits with follow-up game expansions.

EA in CP2020...is that Microtech or Zetatech do you think? I think it's a great plot idea and a NICE jab at their competition.

If they do a really solid job on the base game and mechanics, they should really have this open-world urban setting plus wasteland that lets them add indefiinitely - and perhaps let others do so as well. For anyone that hasn't run or played CP2020, Night City downtown area is just one part of a very large city - REDs or fans could add neighbourhoods and Combat Zone sectors for years and not run out of content. Wisdom000 has done a great job of mapping the Greater NC Area and you can see how much content could be plugged in.

 

[Poet_and_Gentleman.598]

It's funny you should mention mid-90's philosophies.

So basically... what you're doing is comparing the Oculus to Da vinci's flying machine while it is more like a Spitfire.

The big difference between then and now is that tech can actually deliver on the promise of VR

CDPR --- if they really had steel balls --- should be the first to get it to market and set the standards.

instead of you know ---rehashing board game mechanics or Fallout 2.

Look at this for example:
http://www.gamespot.com/videos/how-scary-is-alien-isolation-with-oculus-rift-expl/2300-6421887/

I challenge you to find a youtube vid with similar reactions from SEGA VR.

 

[kofeiiniturpa]

So basically... what you're doing is comparing the Oculus to Da vinci's flying machine while it is more like a Spitfire.

The big difference between then and now is that tech can actually deliver on the promise of VR

No, I'm doing what you are doing when you suggest that I long to get back in the past; I almost linked a video of Duke 3D too, same time frame, mid-90's and an FPS game with FPS mechanics.

You don't think that the technologiocal advancements that make your virtual reality a possibility, and have molded the FPS, TPS, RTS, you name it genres, wouldn't have any effect on turnbased games or statbased RPG's; that those are "90's philosophy" whereas the others and what you want are not despite being there in the 90's as well?

You also don't need to defend Oculus to me, I don't care about how it works and what it does enough to start debating about it.

 

[Poet_and_Gentleman.598]

No, I'm doing what you are doing when you suggest that I long to get back in the past;

So basically you had a knee-jerk reaction and apparently you don't want to debate, you just wanted to tell me about it? Can you please get to the meat and potatoes?

You don't think that the technologiocal advancements that make your virtual reality a possibility, and have molded the FPS, TPS, RTS, you name it genres, wouldn't have any effect on turnbased games or statbased RPG's;

Well, what possible improvement could tech bring to statbased RPGs or TB games? Meaning beyond cosmetic changes?

To a great extent gaming haven't made significant progress since 2003 except in the graphics departments.Espescially /w TB strategic depth, you don`t need any tech to achieve it. Go is arguably one of the deepest strategy game there is.Tech allows for major innovation in RPG but it would push push waaay waaaaaaaay beyond the RPG genre and more toward simulation. Furthermore, I think it's just outside of our reach.

For example, mount and blade is made possible but not so with triple A graphics. Dwarf fortress is procedurally generated, but it's not possible to bring it to 3D for the time being.

For these game as well as VR, the bottleneck to bring them to triple A level is the tech.

technological advance brings graphical improvements to established genres and little more. Reasons for this are several, but overly conservative fans is the major culprit.

It's the difference between watching a sculptor clipping the nails of an ice sculpture and using a chainsaw to get a rough shape.

You also don't need to defend Oculus to me, I don't care about how it works and what it does enough to start debating about it.

Then if you don't want to hear about VR, don't quote posts about VR. Simple.

 

[kofeiiniturpa]

Well, what possible improvement could tech bring to statbased RPGs or TB games? Meaning beyond cosmetic changes?

Isn't the cosmetic side the holy grail these days; be it DX11+ graphics and the VR stuff you promote?

Of course with greater computing power come the possibilities for greater complexity, fluidity and usability (clearer interfaces, more complex AI routines, more complex actions and calculations and the memory to hold on to those, more precise controls from closeup and afar....) with the much craved for visual galore that seem to be considered to make or break a game these days.

It's an ass backwards philosophy that's taken a hold these days that what worked before can not work anymore when it comes to these certain specific models of design, an improvement is considered to be not actually improving, but replacing with something else and throwing some HD shit and probably soon VR too on top. Despite the general crumminess of their production values due to the lack of resources, indies and KS devs tend to make better games these days than the big companies because they actually look back and take notes from how this or that could be made better now. The improvements need not be ground breaking innovations that try to reinvent the wheel, they just need to make things to work better.

To a great extent gaming haven't made significant progress since 2003

True.

 

[EvilWolf]

To a great extent gaming haven't made significant progress since 2003 except in the graphics departments.Espescially /w TB strategic depth, you don`t need any tech to achieve it. Go is arguably one of the deepest strategy game there is.Tech allows for major innovation in RPG but it would push push waaay waaaaaaaay beyond the RPG genre and more toward simulation. Furthermore, I think it's just outside of our reach.

For example, mount and blade is made possible but not so with triple A graphics. Dwarf fortress is procedurally generated, but it's not possible to bring it to 3D for the time being.

For these game as well as VR, the bottleneck to bring them to triple A level is the tech.

technological advance brings graphical improvements to established genres and little more. Reasons for this are several, but overly conservative fans is the major culprit.

It's the difference between watching a sculptor clipping the nails of an ice sculpture and using a chainsaw to get a rough shape.

I have to disagree with that, technology has greatly improved many aspects of gaming, with audio compression technology, and storage changes since 2003 games are able to be much bigger and able to have audio (notably dialogue) during all that extra time, for instance the main reason Bethesda used the same voice actors for characters of the same race was to reduce audio file size, which is why we're able to get multiple people for the same race in Skyrim. Not to mention the size of Skyrim compared to Oblivion. To stick with The Elder Scrolls, compare the size and scope of Morrowind to Oblivion, there was so much more to do in Morrowind BECAUSE they had very little spoken dialogue. Processing power as well while technically 'graphical' I suppose has also improved a great deal since 2003.

I do see what you're saying though, today most of the developers just want to focus on the graphics because it's usually all their fan base can readily judge in comparison to the different facets of technology.

 

[Suhiira]

The problem with Oculus is it's still a rather expensive niche product the majority of gamers can't afford. Yeah they've sold about 85,000 of them total, what percentage of users play RPG/FPS games? Half? What percentage of them would be interested in CP2077? Half? What percentage of potential CP2077 players would refuse to buy the game because it doesn't have Oculus? Half? So CDPR should make their game with a target audience of 10 to 20,000 players?
Now I'm a techie not a marketing type ... but it seems to me that would be rather foolish.

 

[Suhiira]

EA in CP2020...is that Microtech or Zetatech do you think? I think it's a great plot idea and a NICE jab at their competition.

I'd vote for Microtech representing Microsoft, so must be Zetatech.

 

[Poet_and_Gentleman.598]

Isn't the cosmetic side the holy grail these days; be it DX11+ graphics and the VR stuff you promote?

If you decide to beg the question, it's customary to also give the answer to yourself.

Of course with greater computing power come the possibilities for greater complexity, fluidity and usability (clearer interfaces, more complex AI routines, more complex actions and calculations and the memory to hold on to those, more precise controls from closeup and afar....).

Right. Features that actually require little to no computing power when it comes to TB and statbased RPGs. And then I said something sarcastic which Sard deleted. Curse him!

It's an ass backwards philosophy that's taken a hold these days that what worked before can not work anymore when it comes to these certain specific models of design, an improvement is considered to be not actually improving, but replacing with something else and throwing some HD shit and probably soon VR too on top.

improvements need not be ground breaking innovations that try to reinvent the wheel, they just need to make things to work better.

So you rebutt the idea that you don't lament for the bad old days by lamenting for the bad old days?

I FIND THIS CONFUSING AND POLITELY REQUEST CLARIFICATION, SIR.

The problem with Oculus is it's still a rather expensive niche product the majority of gamers can't afford.

They sold 85 000 development kits and there is no release date for the consumer version yet. They made basically no advertising beyond John Carmack. Now they have been acquired by Facebook. Sony is also entering the race so you need to multiply that figure by several orders of magnitude. By how much? You decide, but be sure that these people want a return on their investments and they're not planning for five digits sales figures.

Does your cell phone plan costs more then 20$ a month? Do you have a computer that is worth more then 400$ ? Can you finance? Do you have a credit card?

Good. You have the money.You just don't want it.

Yeah they've sold about 85,000 of them total, what percentage of users play RPG/FPS games? Half?
What percentage of them would be interested in CP2077? Half? What percentage of potential CP2077 players would refuse to buy the game because it doesn't have Oculus? Half? So CDPR should make their game with a target audience of 10 to 20,000 players?
Now I'm a techie not a marketing type ... but it seems to me that would be rather foolish.

And as I said, it's a bit of a gambit (and hence the steel balls comments).

In any case, the devs should contact VALVE or Oculus and share data on how it could be made to work /w CP2077.

In the worse case scenario (and that would be regrettable), they should do what Alien:Isolation did. Test it out, demo it in public, leave an unofficial mod for VR, so there is no or little expectation of support while still getting fan feedback. Include it for CP2078 when the market for VR is mature enough.

In any case, I've suddenly discovered the secret to inner peace - it's RTS games! Of which I shall become a great proponent of! Those and My Little Pony MMOs. Mmmm. Ponies!

 

[Suhiira]

In any case, you do like stats after all, why the sudden change of heart suzy?
Did you figure out yet how many people over 50 with bad reflexes are going to buy CP2077? is it even 10 000?
Or how many triple A studios are interested in catering to them?

I always liked stats that can be verified and are relevant to whatever is being discussed. But misleading or unverifiable stats used to advance an agenda remind me far to much of the sort of propaganda popular with certain regimes to justify their actions and goals.
You assume the vast majority of players as a whole prefer player skill based combat systems. I merely try to point out that some alternative system wouldn't preclude some potential players from playing in the first place AND it's rather doubtful many of those that prefer player skill based systems won't purchase the game simply because they prefer that kind of combat system.

Does your cell phone plan costs more then 20$ a month? Do you have a computer that is worth more then 400$ ? Can you finance? Do you have a credit card?

In answer to your questions my phone costs me $100 a YEAR ... so rather less then $20 a month.
My PC is worth considerably more then $400 because I use it to do far more then browse the net.
I don't care to finance anything ... and never have.
And I don't, and never have had a credit card, I do however have a debit card.