Sorry punk, I'm all out of favors.

+
Sorry punk, I'm all out of favors.

The topic of player agency within the plot has been bothering me ever since I finished TW3. For all it's amazing approaches to quest design, it embraces a gaming convention that I feel is abused in RPGs, and one I think would be out of place in Cyberpunk: servitude to the quest giver. By way of example, anyone who's played the game knows how many people Geralt is obligated to. The Initial setup, in fact, is him being placed in service of Emhyr. And then in service of the Baron, in service of Dijkstra, in service of the Crones and on it goes. Geralt is continually told ' you do this for me, and then I'll help you.' The problem is, this occurs so often the narrative device becomes strained. The writers have to justify why the fuck a capable badass like Geralt is simply not striking out alone. Compare that to Geralt in TW2. He breaks out of prison, practically spits in Roche's face, pursues Letho to Flotsam and can leave the town in flames all based on his own actions. He can even choose later on whether to rescue Triss or continue with his own agenda. Geralt in TW2 is proactive, even straight up selfish if you want him to be. Geralt in TW3 is passive and often plays errand boy. Isn't TW2 more in keeping with the themes of Cyberpunk? Shouldn't we be working for ourselves instead of other people?
 
Last edited:
I would tend to agree - the concept of "To achieve A, you need to do a favour for B, which then involves doing something for C..." is an overused mechanic, and I'd hope to see less of it. I'm OK with seeing the protagonist being TOLD that in order to get what he wants, he needs to do a favour, but when that happens, I'd like more opportunities to say "No", and achieve the objective by other means if that's what he (and/or the player) wants.

With the consequences that go with it, of course. Doing the favour may be easier, but put you in a bad position with others. NOT doing the favour may put you in a bad position if you ever need one back from the quest-giver.
 
Last edited:
That's one of the reasons I'd like the storytelling and narrative conclusivity aspects of Cyberpunk to be more loose in structuring and based on the reactivity to the players choice of route and action. As opposed to the usual "This story needs to be told" method that guides the player through a more or less strict path every time.

I know I'm broken record about this, but the better Fallout games (1, 2, New Vegas) do a fine job with that. Letting the player carve his/her own storyline with reactivity and conclusions according to how the player decided to approach the game (even lacking the conclsions if the player decided not to meddle with certain stuff that had some in store).

I'm OK with seeing the protagonist being TOLD that in order to get what he wants, he needs to do a favour, but when that happens, I'd like more opportunities to say "No", and achieve the objective by other means if that's what he (and/or the player) wants.

With the consequences that go with it, of course. Doing the favour may be easier, but put you in a bad position with others. NOT doing the favour may put you in a bad position if you ever need one back from the quest-giver.

Very much agreed.

I would like to see there being consequences to saying "No" to a quest giver. Other than the usual, "Well come back when you feel like it" or that the quest simply lingers in your log until when ever you decide to do it (time sensitivity - where sensible and applicable - might do some nifty tricks to reactivity and telling the player that not caring enough might also be understood as a "no", the world doesn't always wait for the player).
 
Last edited:
The trouble is if you do an open world then time sensitive quests become an issue.

If you're the type of player that does one quest/mission at a time then this isn't a problem, but very few of us are. We collect every quest we see then mentally sort them (level requirement, importance, main plot, proximity to each other, whatever) and then deal with them. If we wind up with multiple time sensitive quests we're screwed. I recall this happening once or twice in other games, and if it's intentional that's one thing but it usually isn't and is VERY annoying.
 
yes, I agree, sometimes is boring and unrealistic to to follow orders and don't beeing able to decide what to do next or who to help, some type of the choices and actions of tw2 make more sense in cp2077 as those from tw3, more freedom of choices are a good opportunity to brng more fun, non linear and interesting gameplay to cp2077, and then to deal with the consequences
 
@Garrison72

What you're talking about isn't truly emergent gameplay, though. Even in the examples which you provided from TW2, you're still following one of several predetermined paths which the quest developers have laid out for you. You may have the illusion of freedom and agency, but that's all it is, an illusion. The only way for the protagonist to truly set their own agenda is to create a sandbox, and I personally don't care for those types of games.
 
I'm okay with being told what to do if I was a specific role, but I agree the quests shouldn't be all the time of "You do this for me, I'll do this for you".
 
I'm okay with being told what to do if I was a specific role, but I agree the quests shouldn't be all the time of "You do this for me, I'll do this for you".


My point is NPCs should not always be telling us what to do. The game should present options and ask: what do you want to do? The former can make us feel like someone's bitch. The latter gives us control over our destiny.
 
The game should present options and ask: what do you want to do?

Yeah, thats what I said before.XD

I'm okay with taking orders as a Solo/Cop but a corporate or a techie?

Hell fucking no, I want to run my own businesses doing my own shit and getting my own clients with my tech.

Again, I think it should all be optional on if you want to take orders from other NPCs or not.
 
You may have the illusion of freedom and agency, but that's all it is, an illusion.
Ummmmm ...
It's a game ... it's all about creating the illusion of this, that, and the other thing. If that illusion is something the player can accept vice tolerate the game is a success.
 
My point is NPCs should not always be telling us what to do. The game should present options and ask: what do you want to do? The former can make us feel like someone's bitch. The latter gives us control over our destiny.

Pretty sure that npcs in TW3 are not "always telling us what to do."

Do you want to side with the Crones or oppose them?

Do you want to take Ciri to Emhyr or not?

Whom do you want to put on the throne of Skellige?

Do you allow Keira Metz to go to Radovid or not?

Do you want to assist in overthrowing Radovid or not?

Do you intervene to assist Roach vs. Dijkstra?

Do you decide to investigate Birna Bran or leave the Skellige nobility to their own devices?

Do you choose to intervene on behalf of Olgierd or acquiesce to Gaunter O'Dimm?

Do you want to investigate who Sylvia Anna's fifth target was or not?

Do you want to disclose to Guillame the secret that Vivienne is harboring?

Do you want to help Triss escort the mages out of Novigrad?

Do you want to help Yennefer trap the power of a Jinn?

Do you want to accept <insert name of 200+ contracts in game> or not?

That list doesn't even include the hundreds of secondary quests throughout the game or all of the primary. I'm pretty sure that Geralt would have gone in search of Ciri regardless of whether Emhyr put a gun to his head. Same goes for combating the Wild Hunt.
 
Last edited:
The trouble is if you do an open world then time sensitive quests become an issue.

If you're the type of player that does one quest/mission at a time then this isn't a problem, but very few of us are.

It's only a problem if the player isn't informed of a possible time sensitivity (e.g. "This offer expires in five days"). If the player neglects the given information and misses out on things, he can only blame himself and nobody else.

I'd very much like Cyberpunk to be a game where there's at least a modicum of requirements to pay attention to what happens in the game, and things happening that actually matter. Instead of, you know, just flying through without any thought following some GPS arrows when arsed to, where if there's a quest about a burning house or a time bomb, the house burns forever and everyone around the bomb is safe if the player doesn't show up (just to put a couple of examples). Too many games are afraid to use time to provide reactivity (which doesn't automatically mean it's a doomsday clock for failure), someone should just do it and explore the possibilities.
 
Last edited:
@Garrison72

What you're talking about isn't truly emergent gameplay, though. Even in the examples which you provided from TW2, you're still following one of several predetermined paths which the quest developers have laid out for you. You may have the illusion of freedom and agency, but that's all it is, an illusion. The only way for the protagonist to truly set their own agenda is to create a sandbox, and I personally don't care for those types of games.

I've no problem with it being an illusory choice, and would definitely prefer that to a sandbox. The key-word is "choice". It's perfectly OK by me to know at a meta-level that regardless of what I do, the outcome is pre-determined by the developer, and I would sacrifice real choice any time in favour of a good story.

@Garrison72 mentioned TW2. That's more on rails than TW3, and a lot more so than I'd expect Cyberpunk to be, but as he said, the illusion of freedom is stronger simply because there are a lot of times where you get to make "fuck you" choices.

As far as time-sensitive quests are concerned, I'm comfortable with it within reason as long as the developer is fair to the player. Which means that it's one situation where I think the player should be warned - there should be enough hints, subtle or in-your-face, that something is only going to be available for a limited period.

I also think that the issue of increasing choice ties in, to a certain extent, with the concept of Main Quest/Sidequests. We have the classic RPG concept of an overarching Main Quest that starts almost at the beginning of the game, and continues (although the goals may change) until the "end" of the game. A quest that the player may choose to ignore for long periods, but which, eventually, has to be done. That Main Quest concept puts constraints on the story-telling and overall design in that the developer has to ensure that, whatever the player does, it can't be blocked from continuing. It also seems to impose a certain linearity to the game in that, even if you can branch out and do things in different orders, you still hit certain milestones.

Maybe it's time to move away from that? As Cyberpunk isn't about saving the world, do we even need a main quest?
 
Meh. I made "fuck YOU" choices all throughout my second Witcher playthrough. Ignored quests, didn't cooperate withe objectives, didn't ask follow up questions, pretty much stuck to the objective of finding Ciri.

I think we still need a main quest - but it should be player determined to a large part. It's your rise from street scum to...less street, still scum.
So, yeah, that's the Theme. How you do it, well, that's going to depend.

A Good Story still needs to be told and the quests and adventures should fold into your story as a character, and make consistent, conextual sense when looked back at.

Story still beats gameplay freedom for me - and for CDPR.
 
Maybe it's time to move away from that? As Cyberpunk isn't about saving the world, do we even need a main quest?

I don't know about anyone else, but I need a distant goal that keeps me going in a game. (distant, as in not something I choose every few hours.) I usually stop playing open world games when the main story ends.

a more interesting question I think is "do we need a villain"? I first thought about this for mass effect andromeda, where the setup is that we are the aliens in the galaxy. exploring this conflict could be interesting without concentrating on fighting a single entity. same principle fits cyberpunk very well.
but then I think of gaunter odimm, or that conversation at orianna's table in blood and wine and I feel like not having a villain would be wasting cdpr's talent. usually my favorite moments in games are conversations with the villains (if they are done well enough). so I'm conflicted..

Meh. I made "fuck YOU" choices all throughout my second Witcher playthrough. Ignored quests, didn't cooperate withe objectives, didn't ask follow up questions, pretty much stuck to the objective of finding Ciri.

meh. ( :D ) ignoring a quest isn't exactly an interesting choice. it works in the witcher, becuase geralt is who he is - he wouldn't beat up a peasant because he didn't like his tone.
in other rpgs I find playing a jerk the most enjoyable. but in a lot of them most quests are about helping people. if you wanna play an unpleasant character you might miss a significant portion of the game. I guess you can justify doing most of them by saying you are only doing them for the reward, but that feels like a half-solution to the problem. I wanna be evil without being punished by the game itself instead of the story!
 
It's only a problem if the player isn't informed of a possible time sensitivity (e.g. "This offer expires in five days"). If the player neglects the given information and misses out on things, he can only blame himself and nobody else.
Good point.

Meh. I made "fuck YOU" choices all throughout my second Witcher playthrough.
Also a good point. The opportunity to tell the givers of side quests "Fuck Off" is a powerful agency of player choice (obviously if the game has a main quest you have to do it ... or totally ignore it for the sandbox). Most times your choices are "Yes" or "No" (and in some games "Later") and there have been more then a few times in games I really wanted to say "Not just no but fuck no!"
 
Last edited:
meh. ( :D ) ignoring a quest isn't exactly an interesting choice.!

Well, that was only one option. I also picked the fast route through, made questionable moral choices because they were expedient and several times, was quite whimsical in who I spared or didn't spare.


Cyberpunk doesn't really have a good/evil matrix. It has more a karmic matrix, where the self-centered, shitheel choices you make come back hard on you, unless you're really, really careful and well backed-up.

Mind you, the generous, open-hearted choices -also- come back on you...


Yeah, it's a Dark Future. Mean, mean, mean.
 
The trouble is if you do an open world then time sensitive quests become an issue.
That depends entirely on the game design. If this will be an issue it's only because CDPR is not generating quests procedurally. It's because they hand-craft everything. I am watching "Archmage Rises" and here is an interesting text from its game designer about the passage of time and quests.

With that said... I do recall some quests where you could step out and after certain time quest was no longer there (they resolved themselves, so to speak). The one example is the house that bandits wanted to burn, with the Elvish girl inside. I had not enough levels to take on them so I decided to come back later and after some time they were gone and the house was burned down. But I assume this was true only when it came down to smaller quests.

I did read a press text about intervention in the Witcher 3 (I couldn't find later on though) - that when something is happening "in the background" Geralt can decide to get involved and make something will happen. Or he can ignore that and a woman will be hung and die and it will be the end of it. I am not sure how deeply they followed with this one nor if this was some earlier version but I do hope they will rather try to explore this approach more in CP77 over the static "you have all the time in the world because the world is going to wait for you".
 
Last edited:
I likes to do all quests available in a game, don't like missing quests/missions, I also likes to hoard up on butt loads of quests/missions befor I leave the area, do all the questsmissions, maybe play around for a bit somewhere not connected to a quest/mission, and then eventually come back for a butt load of some sweet sweet XP and loot... rinse and repeat.

This directly clashes with when games add things like time limits or something on how fast you have to finish the quest/missions, or time sencetive to when you can get a quest/missions.

One of the big reasons I don't like timelimits like this is because to an extent the game will force you to do things in a certain order, and on occations force you to play a certain way. I like to take my time, scout around, find the best spots to take enemies out without other enemies noticing it, and then take my time putting my plan into action. I much rather spend 30+ minuts sneaking around and compleating a certain area of the game silently, then go loud and ball to the wall running and gunning my way through and be done in less then 3 minuts. Yeah, sure... the only difference between the two styles is 27+ minuts extra time (and maybe some extra xp and loot for doing it silently in some games)... but I get so much more out of doing things my way, then being forced to hurry through most of the game because of some arbitrary time limit. That is just not my style... I like the ability to do things in my pace, in my way, and not have to be bothered with "you have to hurry, otherwise something bad might happend".

I mean, I can be ok with time limits at times, but not all the time, and definatly not when it comes to "the end of the game". That was one of the extreamly few things which I did not like about Fallout 1, the fact that you had to finish certain aspects of the games main story befor X days otherwise game over. I mean the timelimit was long enough for you to finish basicly everything in the game... but if you are like me, someone who likes to take their time in doing things, then such a limit could actually at times become a problem.

It's not like I will not play CP2077 if they happend to have timelimits... I will still play it... but it will probably always bother me a little bit that I am forced to follow a timelimit.
 
Top Bottom