Smart AIs, companions, stealth and random encounters CDPR looking to hire for.

[SigilFey]

But, to your main point regarding having "traditional" or "actual" stealth mechanics, I totally agree. I think what you propose after that may be a bit too ambitious, but hey - what do I know? I'd love to see it nonetheless, and no harm in discussing it.

That was an idea for a scripted, story mission. I don't think it would be reasonable to do something like that with a randomized or procedural system, though (not without it coming up with some really odd situations.) My overall inkling for CP at this point is that it will resemble something like TW3 meets Life is Strange. Plenty of player choice and plenty of scripted, well-played scenes. So, if a player decides to go guns out / no prisoners, the game could load the "combat scenario version" of the quest. If players decide to sneak in, the game could load the "espionage / infiltration version" of the quest. That sort of thing. Then, it would be up to the player to either use "speechcraft skills" to schmooze their way through the mission, or wait until dark and use "sneaking skills" to shimmy up the garbage shoot to get into the restricted sections.

All I'm really saying is that fighting mechanics have evolved exponentially since video games became a thing. Stealth has remained largely limited to "press crouch to disable AI detection". (At that point, in most games, you then creep up on an enemy...to engage in some form of fighting mechanic.)

HOLY CRAP! That is so cool (the Japan one). I especially like what they said about creating a "transparent cockpit" for planes and cars. That would definitely increase safety.

It's actually 10-year-old tech (probably more). I'm sure they have much niftier stuff right now, although I'm not sure it's anywhere near affordable or robust enough to become "standard". And isn't it cool how quickly "science-fiction impossibilities" become "everyday stuff"? (I still remember using rotary phones while daydreaming about having a portable phone that you could just take with you everywhere. Hang the utterly ridiculous, fantastical, head-in-the-clouds idea about having a video phone that would let you actually see the other person...)

 

[Suhiira]

I wouldn't make too many assumptions about tech. It moves fast sometimes.

But like all swords this cuts both ways, don't assume too much either.
Players (and often developers) far to often let "this is cool" overrun "this is reasonable".

 

[Lisbeth_Salander]

Players (and often developers) far to often let "this is cool" overrun "this is reasonable".

I totally agree. What's cool is superior to what is reasonable.

 

[Guest 4149880]

But like all swords this cuts both ways, don't assume too much either.
Players (and often developers) far to often let "this is cool" overrun "this is reasonable".

Don't assume a video game is going to be anywhere as in depth as a PnP game, also Cyberpunk is NOT reality so it doesn't have to shackle itself to what is or isn't possible in the real world. 2020 already deals with technology that doesn't actually exist, probably won't exist in our lifetime if at all. Example is Netrunning as its portrayed, the human consciousness controlling and interacting in a virtual world won't happen, but its seen as "cool" so it works.

Everyone should limit their preconceptions for does or doesn't make a Cyberpunk game based on a future reality.

 

[Suhiira]

Don't assume a video game is going to be anywhere as in depth as a PnP game, also Cyberpunk is NOT reality so it doesn't have to shackle itself to what is or isn't possible in the real world.

Yes, it doesn't have to, but it certainly can.
While there's a certain risk in being innovative, why make cookie cutter games?
And wouldn't being as realistic as possible make it distinctly different from most video games?

 

[Sardukhar]

Everyone should limit their preconceptions for does or doesn't make a Cyberpunk game based on a future reality.

No, I disagree with this. A Cyberpunk game is based on a near-future reality.

Limited tech is very important to Cyberpunk. It should be believable - not far from now. Otherwise, high tech, low life is much harder to do when you can teleport at will. Or have force shields. Or lightsabers.

Keep in mind that CDPR devs are all huge CPunk 2020 PnP fans and players. The entire dev team is familiar with and loves the source material. They are modelling from real gear and 2020 PnP gear, not Star Wars, Star Trek, Babylon 5, BSG or any other far-tech science fictions stories.

 

[Suhiira]

Limited tech is very important to Cyberpunk. It should be believable - not far from now. Otherwise, high tech, low life is much harder to do when you can teleport at will. Or have force shields. Or lightsabers.

Not only limited tech but (in spite of some peoples thoughts otherwise) limited availability of that tech.

Having abilities beyond the norm is the whole point of cybernetics, you can do something others can't.
If every street thug you encounter has cybernetics then what's special about having them?

 

[Sardukhar]

Not only limited tech but (in spite of some peoples thoughts otherwise) limited availability of that tech.

Having abilities beyond the norm is the whole point of cybernetics, you can do something others can't.
If every street thug you encounter has cybernetics then what's special about having them?

And, AND what's so special about the price you must pay to get them?

It's that price that is at the very heart of cyberpunk. It so closely resembles and illustrates the price we must pay in the real world for our dreams to be realized.

Unless your dream was to someday moderate a Cyberpunk forum filled with agreeable, foul mouthed GENIUSES. In which case my dream has been realized!

Except for Redge, of course. <Spits>

 

[Snowflakez]

And, AND what's so special about the price you must pay to get them?

It's that price that is at the very heart of cyberpunk. It so closely resembles and illustrates the price we must pay in the real world for our dreams to be realized.

Unless your dream was to someday moderate a Cyberpunk forum filled with agreeable, foul mouthed GENIUSES. In which case my dream has been realized!

Except for Redge, of course. <Spits>

We love you too, Sard.

To your point about limited tech, though, I agree and disagree. I agree because I think limited tech, and the trade-offs that come with using it, are absolutely at the heart of Cyberpunk (both the genre as a whole and Pondsmith's 2020) and will be an important theme to nail down in 2077.

I disagree because I really do think there's something to be said for -- again -- 57 years of progress AFTER an already advanced society exists (CP2020 is already much further along than we are in 2017, though certainly not "far future").

Of course, it's not "1000 years into the future" type "further along". I'm not expecting spaceships, lightspeed travel, lightsabers and eye beams to pop up all over the place - and even if some of that stuff did exist (to lesser degree, obviously), I 100% wouldn't expect to see it in the hands of every Joe and Mary to walk around the street - I just don't think from a gameplay or story perspective, we're going to be waiting dozens of hours just to get our hands on some neat tech.

It might be keeping with the theme, sure, but the excuse that "it's cyberpunk" might not fly when you're faced with the average player, who might not give much of a damn about the lore or the underlying themes of the game. They might just want to get cool gear and do whatever they please with it. That doesn't mean I think that CDPR is going to throw a bunch of advanced tech at the player 3 hours in, but I don't think it's going to take as long as some of you think.

 

[Suhiira]

It's that price that is at the very heart of cyberpunk. It so closely resembles and illustrates the price we must pay in the real world for our dreams to be realized.

Isn't that the whole point of cyberpsychosis?

While I have serious doubts about the "reality" of such a condition, and the (almost invariably) psychotic reactions laid out in CP2020 I definitely see the need for some sort of limiting factor as to how much cyberware any one person is permitted to have. Yes, it's a game construct with virtually no basis in anything, but it's a needed one.

It might be keeping with the theme, sure, but the excuse that "it's cyberpunk" might not fly when you're faced with the average player, who might not give much of a damn about the lore or the underlying themes of the game. They might just want to get cool gear and do whatever they please with it.

And this points out the need for the cyberpsychosis mechanic.

And frankly it doesn't really matter if the average player knows a thing about the cyberpunk genera, because they're just "playing a game" and will accept (most of) the concepts and restrictions in that game like they do those in any other game.

Only us Cybernerds really care

 

[Sardukhar]

Isn't that the whole point of cyberpsychosis?

That's the most extreme version. Given how people don't handle the modern world too well in reality, cyberpsychosis wouldn't surprise me.

But mostly I meant that cutting parts of yourself off, doing dubious jobs for bad people, selling your ideals to afford a better car, better gun, upgraded shop - these are all the prices you play in Cyberpunk to get what you want.

Case in Neuromancer wasn't cyberpsycho, but in order to get his hacking capability back, he did some highly questionable things. Molly wasn't cyberpsycho, but in order to get out of her shitty life, she did grim things - and kept doing them so she could stay "her".

Cyberpsychosis can be left completely out of a game and it will easily be cyberpunk as long as it has that "noir" price-must-be-paid theme.

 

[Snowflakez]

That's the most extreme version. Given how people don't handle the modern world too well in reality, cyberpsychosis wouldn't surprise me.

But mostly I meant that cutting parts of yourself off, doing dubious jobs for bad people, selling your ideals to afford a better car, better gun, upgraded shop - these are all the prices you play in Cyberpunk to get what you want.

Case in Neuromancer wasn't cyberpsycho, but in order to get his hacking capability back, he did some highly questionable things. Molly wasn't cyberpsycho, but in order to get out of her shitty life, she did grim things - and kept doing them so she could stay "her".

Cyberpsychosis can be left completely out of a game and it will easily be cyberpunk as long as it has that "noir" price-must-be-paid theme.

Yeah, that all makes sense. That's the sort of stuff I really hope to see in the game. I'm sure you're going to get some players who want to RP as a "purist", actively choosing to avoid any tech that modifies them in any way. The potential is there for some really fun personal stories (Assuming we don't have a set protagonist).

 

[Guest 4149880]

No, I disagree with this. A Cyberpunk game is based on a near-future reality.

Limited tech is very important to Cyberpunk. It should be believable - not far from now. Otherwise, high tech, low life is much harder to do when you can teleport at will. Or have force shields. Or lightsabers.
Keep in mind that CDPR devs are all huge CPunk 2020 PnP fans and players. The entire dev team is familiar with and loves the source material. They are modelling from real gear and 2020 PnP gear, not Star Wars, Star Trek, Babylon 5, BSG or any other far-tech science fictions stories.

Cyberpunk is based on a fictional future reality because even some of the technology in 2020 isn't reality. So my point is the video game doesn't require the shackles of "reality" to innovate in fictional technology because they already have in the PnP. That doesn't mean it will lose its cyberpunk theme when they innovate in 2077.

You misunderstand my views on the kind of technology that I'd personally want to see in 2077. What I've suggested, Its already existing technology within the game or universe, and some a little more advanced for 2020 but still plausible for 2077, and none of the ideas I'd offered are no where near the level of an intergalactic civilization or thousands of years in the future.

 

[Suhiira]

Cyberpunk is based on a fictional future reality because even some of the technology in 2020 isn't reality. So my point is the video game doesn't require the shackles of "reality" to innovate in fictional technology because they already have in the PnP. That doesn't mean it will lose its cyberpunk theme when they innovate in 2077.

That's rather the point.
A realistic near-future sci-fi setting exists in the PnP ... but not in the video game market.
Couldn't, shouldn't, CP2077 fill that niche?

 

[Sardukhar]

You misunderstand my views on the kind of technology that I'd personally want to see in 2077. What I've suggested, Its already existing technology within the game or universe, and some a little more advanced for 2020 but still plausible for 2077, and none of the ideas I'd offered are no where near the level of an intergalactic civilization or thousands of years in the future.

Oh. Well, we're agreed then.

I, too, feel that Cyberpunk has a weird combo of holy-crap tech like Full Body Conversions and, you know, the FN-FAL or whatever. "Hey, I inject my consciousness into the digital simulation world and I also send a fax from my car!" Yeah, both tech from the core game. A car fax! Plus the Matrix!

Always odd.

 

[Bondaebu]

Hmm, at least I don't want to see companion characters kind of Bethesda. to see that speechless mouth and soulless animations is painful for me.

also, It's so awkward when I say good-bye to the companion. they are all just nod and do so, without any refuses. maybe they could say some complaining like Fallout:NV or Baldur's Gate. but that's all. anyway, they will wait for you just doing nothing.

especially, I hate nearly every companions of Skyrim. and Bethesda try to fix these soulless companions in Fallout 4, adding affinity system and some extra dialogues, but that was not enough for me. I just picked the lone wanderer perk and just traveled with dogmeat.

companions of Witcher style? heck yes. this is what I want to see. combat and wandering with companions in certain quest, situation, with rich dialogue. It's so immersive and fun.

I hope devs keep bring this design to Cyberpunk game.

 

[sv3672]

especially, I hate nearly every companions of Skyrim. and Bethesda try to fix these soulless companions in Fallout 4, adding affinity system and some extra dialogues, but that was not enough for me. I just picked the lone wanderer perk and just traveled with dogmeat.

companions of Witcher style? heck yes. this is what I want to see. combat and wandering with companions in certain quest, situation, with rich dialogue. It's so immersive and fun.

It is very hard to implement "real" companions well, even what you see in Fallout 4 actually required a lot of extra work. All the companions react to dialogue choices made in various quests around the game world, they comment on the environment and situations, it may not seem much, but that is because the content has to be spread between a dozen or so possible companions multiplied by hundreds of quests.

In The Witcher 3, it is more like watching a movie, you sometimes have an NPC temporarily accompany the player in a quest, but it is always that one NPC for that specific quest, there is no choice. They usually do not add much to the gameplay either, you cannot interact with them outside the fixed quest dialogues and cutscenes, they are invulnerable but also tend to deal almost 0 damage to enemies. Outside their quests, the NPCs either disappear or just stand around and have nothing interesting to say. Of course, what is in the game (the cutscenes and dialogues) is done very well, however, the point is that it was made possible by not trying to implement actual permanent companions.

In any case, I think CP2077 will follow the "Witcher" approach, it seems to be more in line with CDPR's philosophy to only put something in the game if it can be done very well in AAA quality. Although with the same reasoning a predefined protagonist would also make more sense.

 

[Suhiira]

It is very hard to implement "real" companions well, even what you see in Fallout 4 actually required a lot of extra work.

Very true.
Tho many people like a large number of potential companions I'd much prefer 2-3 well done ones to 8-10 Fallout style ones.

I guess it goes back to the approach Beth takes vs CDPR, more is better vs fewer and well implemented.

 

[Snowflakez]

Very true.
Tho many people like a large number of potential companions I'd much prefer 2-3 well done ones to 8-10 Fallout style ones.

I guess it goes back to the approach Beth takes vs CDPR, more is better vs fewer and well implemented.

I think both approaches have their place.

On one hand, I thought Fallout 4's companions (its gameplay aside) were quite well done. Not perfect by any means, but they had more personality than previous Bethesda entries. To me, I saw clear improvement. On the other hand, there's clearly a benefit in having a smaller amount of companions that are perhaps not ever-present, with their own unique quests, personalities and histories.

That said, It's tough to compare the Witcher 3's companions to Bethesda's. The Witcher 3 has 2 previous games and a series of books to pull companion history and personality from, whereas Bethesda creates everything fresh each time. We can argue all day about whether or not Bethesda should be doing that, but the fact is that they do - and have to work with what they have. I'm not saying it's impossible for them to make great companions from scratch, just that it's harder and it's not really a perfectly fair comparison.

Anyway, yeah, I'm all for the "CDPR approach" to making companions. Fewer companions with better, more in-depth personalities. That said, I would also eventually (even if it's not in this game) like to have at least 1 companion that you can have with you permanently or semi-permanently. Riding around in the Witcher 3 was lonely by design (that's kinda how Witchers operate) but I wouldn't mind having a really well-designed friend tag along (optional, of course) in a CDPR RPG. Imagine Ellie from the last of us, but with her own quests, stats, equipment, etc.

 

[sv3672]

On one hand, I thought Fallout 4's companions (its gameplay aside) were quite well done. Not perfect by any means, but they had more personality than previous Bethesda entries. To me, I saw clear improvement. On the other hand, there's clearly a benefit in having a smaller amount of companions that are perhaps not ever-present, with their own unique quests, personalities and histories.

I think what makes the more difference is not necessarily the number of companions (The Witcher 3 and its expansions do have a reasonable number of NPCs that follow the player around at certain points of the story), but rather having them tied to specific quests vs. being made available all the time as followers. For example, this NPC in Fallout 4 apparently has more than 1600 dialogue lines, although I do not know how many of those are unique (not just the same line reused in different contexts), this is actually more than anyone in TW3. But much of it is scattered all around the game world in small bits that most players would likely miss, whereas Witcher NPCs have most of their content in their story quests, while generic "world interaction" is something like 10-20 lines per character. Obviously, the latter (narrative driven) approach is much more efficient if the goal is a well developed character with a given amount of content/production cost, even if the above comparison is not entirely fair because it does not take into account the different quality of writing and acting/animations.

A really good permanent companion would probably need content on the same order of magnitude as the protagonist, even if not exactly the same, but ideally not more than a few times less. However, FO4 style companions can still be improved noticeably by giving them more personal quests, like at least 4 instead of just 2, that is not a very large overall increase, but it adds more depth to them.

That said, It's tough to compare the Witcher 3's companions to Bethesda's. The Witcher 3 has 2 previous games and a series of books to pull companion history and personality from, whereas Bethesda creates everything fresh each time. We can argue all day about whether or not Bethesda should be doing that, but the fact is that they do - and have to work with what they have. I'm not saying it's impossible for them to make great companions from scratch, just that it's harder and it's not really a perfectly fair comparison.

True, although TW3 characters can be interesting even to those who did not play the previous games nor read the books. Having a known backstory does make it easier to write them well, on the other hand.

Fewer companions with better, more in-depth personalities. That said, I would also eventually (even if it's not in this game) like to have at least 1 companion that you can have with you permanently or semi-permanently.

That could be a good idea, but it seems to be more suited to a game with a fixed protagonist, or the single companion may need to be customizable, too (if that is feasible).