Two weeks after: your thoughts on CDPR's vision of Cyberpunk

[Snowflakez]

we're going to play the real gameplay in the demo. we... the fans.

I doubt we're going to see gameplay at Gamescom, much less play it ourselves.

To way over simplify things, the problem I see with marrying Bethesda and CDPR games is that one focuses on width of story and the other focuses on depth. One you can go off and do anything. The other your character has a purpose. To have that type of purpose in multiple ways of handling situations for a very wide story would be very challenging. Sure you could go for both ... but it would take a huge amount of investment ... and I'm not sure a console disc could handle it ... making the financials problematic.

Yeah, of course it would be expensive and it will almost certainly never happen, because budgets go towards bigger worlds and prettier graphics these days instead of what I'm proposing. Unfortunate, but them's the breaks in the AAA market. I am glad companies like CDPR do not go the same route, but they are so few and far between that it all feels a bit hopeless sometimes.

But I think you are misunderstanding what I was asking for. I put some stuff in the OT spoiler tag if that helps, to try to explain better.

Not asking for a different type of storytelling (that implies big changes to the main story style), but more interesting, varied, and engaging side stories. Bethesda has already done it a few times in some of their quests, so they can do it, I just want them to do it more and while giving players real choice (and none of this "yes, no (yes), sarcastic no (yes)" BS.

 

[Nexus-77]

...
I preferred ME1s main plot structure as compared to the others. But the bottom line is that for me, those games and TW3 are the only recent RPGs that both made me feel connected to the characters and story, and made it feel like it was my story ... simultaneously. I guess that's the sweet spot I'm talking about.

You just said everything. You just described why I happen to love those games you mentioned (plus The Witcher 1).

Mass Effect 1... despite all its flaws and sometimes not great writing... that game was made in such a spontaneous way... I think Hudson and the other people at Bioware simply didn't know what they were creating. A little great universe. You can feel this spontaneity throughout the game and it's so good.

Shepard was this archetypal, mythical American hero. And he/she was also a universal character. I'm fond of my first Shepard. So naive and determined to do what was right.

Also, the atmosphere. I remember, above all, those synths and the blue. I love the blue colors in the Citadel. Also the deserts, the weird noises and the solitude in those little planets that the good, old Bioware designed..

I remember watching the credits, listening to the song and my brother, who was at my apartment at the moment, laughing at me, haha. I was blown away..

The Witcher 1 was pure magic... the opening reminded me of a feeling I only felt when I was little and my grandma would tell me one of her bed time stories. I love it, the soundtrack is still one of my favorite till this day, "Lakeside and Black Tern Island Night" played in such a beautiful moment in that game.



Now, The Witcher 3. With the TW3, CDPR was fighting to create the best game they could and it showed. Geralt of Rivia is simply my favorite character in games. For me, he was a strong man with a heart. A beautiful, rare man, since kindness is not always accompanied by bravery. But for me Geralt was this type of guy... not a hero, far from it. someone trying to do what is right when it is possible. so actually... actually a 'hero'. a 'real' one.

I don't know if it's the writing, Doug or a mix of Doug's acting and the writing... but damn. I love Geralt like I love Philip Carey. There. My two favorite male characters in a long time. they are so different, almost opposites in some regards, but so full of layers both of them.

The first time I played TW3, I got the "bad" ending. Geralt sucked as a parent because of me. And to see him like that in the end was disheartening. I had to go back and replay half of the game to see him and Ciri happy as a witcher.
But this is not important.

The important thing were the many great moments in that game... the pure beauty. And those great moments, I can't even count them. Sometimes, after watching something, or listening to something while playing, I would say: "That's it. There are no movies anymore, there's no tv. This thing is the future. It will become more and more important and predominant. What a fucking powerful media."

Anyway. You mentioned my three favorite games and told me why I love them. They may not be "the best" out there (although TW3 is probably the best game ever produced until now). But how I enjoyed playing ME1, TW1 and TW3...

 

[kofeiiniturpa]

It's more difficult for the reason you just stated. The narrative has to be written with the characters in mind.
...

Yeah, Ok, I suppose it is if you look at it that way. But we seem to be talking about different narrative types anyway. Your mind seems to revolve around one where the playercharacter is the centerpiece of the core narrative and everything has to be desinged with that in mind. With that, it obviously is harder, and it put a game like Skyrim in an even less favorable light since... yeah, Skyrim gives you a grand story with great urgency where you are the centerpiece, the most important person in the game (a bit like Geralt in Witcher 3), and then lets you ignore it indefinitely without any consequence, and doesn't give you any reason to do anything except for there being stuff that can be done.

My thinking is on a narrative where the PC with his journey/ordeal/what ever is but a visitor in the gameworld and whos troubles no-one but himself is concerned about. And during his way towards what ever the goal is, the story forms from what ever gets done (or what might not get done) and how. Basically a bunch of sidequests whose outcomes evolve the gameworld and gameplay and give the player further push towards his goals if he hasn't found better way. It should all be somewhat connected. In that the "harder" part is not really the creation of the content, that would be created anyway in some manner (reactive ministories, indepth dilemmas and conflicts to solve in different manners, secrets to find, character agency galore, what ever), the "hard" part might be keeping track of it all and creating and number of satisfying endings that are the sum of your journey through the game, how ever long that took and where ever that led you.

People tend to claim that you can't make an indepth storyline with an open, blank slate character. I disagree. The depth comes from the world and what you do there rather than scripted sequences and personal drama. The player decides for the characer (to what ever extent that is possible). He shouldn't have preset characeristics that strongarm the player, not in Cyberpunk, Witcher is different case. Gameplay, gameplay, gameplay. That should be the mantra at CDPR.

Pondsmith said that Cyberpunk isn't about saving the world, but saving yourself. And I don't think a grand predefined storyline fits that bill very well. If the idea was to "save yourself", the player should be given the tools (the character systems and gameplay systems) and the world, and be set loose pondering the idea what it would mean to this or that character to "save oneself". There are limits and the narrative obviously should nudge the player towards some directions for pointers, but the main thing would be letting the player make of the game and its storylines what he can, not guide him through some kind of movie script wannabe.

Anyway, that's what I'm thinking. The post is getting too long again...

 

[gregski]

To have that type of purpose in multiple ways of handling situations for a very wide story would be very challenging. Sure you could go for both ... but it would take a huge amount of investment ... and I'm not sure a console disc could handle it ... making the financials problematic.

Not to mention the 100s of hours that would be required to finish such a game, which could be problematic for many gamers that don't have time/attention span to do that.

 

[Snowflakez]

Not to mention the 100s of hours that would be required to finish such a game, which could be problematic for many gamers that don't have time/attention span to do that.

That... is not a very good reason not to create long games, and fortunately, it's something even CDPR (and Bethesda, and Bioware) disagree with.

I've spent well over 1200 hours in Skyrim, and it would take at least a couple hundred (probably over 300 for someone who has never played one of the ES games before) for a determined player to finish everything. There are STILL dungeons, caves, areas I haven't entered, quests I haven't completed. I'm not in the majority, necessarily, but even regular people like long games with a lot of varied content. They also like short games, they can like both.

Free time shouldn't factor in here. You can spend as much or as little time in Skyrim's world as you want, and play the game in bursts, as most adults do. The game doesn't need to have its ambition curbed to suit your specific needs, because it doesn't work the other way around (you can't stretch a game out magically if you have more free time, but you can take it slow if you don't).

 

[kofeiiniturpa]

I usually get to my limit with long games a 60 hour mark tops. After that it just starts to feel repetitious (if it hasn't already).

Replays if such feel warranted, but I don't really need 100+ hour games.

 

[metalmaniac21]

Replays if such feel warranted, but I don't really need 100+ hour games.

But you play Wizardry. Something's off in this logic.

 

[kofeiiniturpa]

But you play Wizardry. Something's off in this logic.

They're replays. I tend to take long pauses and sometimes just restart for the heck of it.

Wizardry is just grindy fun.

 

[Restlessdingo32]

Yeah, Ok, I suppose it is if you look at it that way. But we seem to be talking about different narrative types anyway. Your mind seems to revolve around one where the playercharacter is the centerpiece of the core narrative and everything has to be desinged with that in mind. With that, it obviously is harder, and it put a game like Skyrim in an even less favorable light since... yeah, Skyrim gives you a grand story with great urgency where you are the centerpiece, the most important person in the game (a bit like Geralt in Witcher 3), and then lets you ignore it indefinitely without any consequence, and doesn't give you any reason to do anything except for there being stuff that can be done.

Yes, there are different narrative types and, consequently, games. In one the game is designed with a narrative in mind, and a character fitting this narrative. These games tend to either have a completely pre-defined character or a limited range of options. The character is effectively a part of the story. In others the character is thrust into the narrative. In these character design is up to the player. They also tend to focus more on side-quests, experiencing the world and less on the narrative, or how the character fits into it.

Look at W3. Geralt is the main character and he's largely pre-defined. He, by default, fits the story line. The story line itself has carefully considered the presence of Geralt, how he fits into it, why he has the motives he does. The thing is, W3 wasn't about Geralt at all. He wasn't the centerpiece. It wasn't about a Witcher roaming the lands, picking up contracts, hunting down monsters and completing those contracts. If W3 was about any character it was about Ciri. Even this isn't something I'd agree with. W3 was about the characters and the dynamic between them. This is why, pardon my french, the game was fucking amazing.

Now look at Skryim. The character is magically dragonborn. Great, but why? Draqons re-appear. Cool, Alduin is coming to town. The main plot doesn't deliver. It doesn't help you identify with the main character because they don't have a stake in the story. They're just there. It doesn't help you identify with any of the characters, really. Everything is forcefully thrust into a story. A story you can largely ignore. The story in this game is a joke at best. You can't identify with it. You can't feel it, or empathize with any of the characters in it. It's unimportant and largely not memorable. The strength of Skyrim was the freedom. The side-quests and exploring the world.

You could argue this was because the writers simply weren't on the same planet as the CDPR writers. I'd agree with this assertion. It was also because complete freedom and open-worldness makes epic story telling incredibly difficult. There are too many variables to account for between the character options and the narrative. The end result is more general main plots, side-quests and none of the magic, or emotion, going into the experience. You don't feel it, it's just something to do.

None of this is to say you cannot have an open world with a great deal of player freedom and an epic narrative, side by side. The simple fact is I cannot count the number of games succeeding at this on one hand. It's not because nobody has tried. It's because it's way more difficult to pull it off. The few games succeeding had a very particular narrative, where limitless character builds could easily fit with the story.

The strength at CDPR is clearly their story telling ability. The best way to play to this strength is to either define the story line, including the character, or limit the character persona's and account for all of the options in the story line. Almost every RPG worth it's salt has done one or the other.

 

[BluPixel]

I usually get to my limit with long games a 60 hour mark tops. After that it just starts to feel repetitious (if it hasn't already).

Replays if such feel warranted, but I don't really need 100+ hour games.

You must have hated Witcher 3.

 

[Snowflakez]

You must have hated Witcher 3.

That's a strong word to use, friend.

He just 'didn't love' it.

 

[Mebrilia]

Yes, there are different narrative types and, consequently, games. In one the game is designed with a narrative in mind, and a character fitting this narrative. These games tend to either have a completely pre-defined character or a limited range of options. The character is effectively a part of the story. In others the character is thrust into the narrative. In these character design is up to the player. They also tend to focus more on side-quests, experiencing the world and less on the narrative, or how the character fits into it.

Look at W3. Geralt is the main character and he's largely pre-defined. He, by default, fits the story line. The story line itself has carefully considered the presence of Geralt, how he fits into it, why he has the motives he does. The thing is, W3 wasn't about Geralt at all. He wasn't the centerpiece. It wasn't about a Witcher roaming the lands, picking up contracts, hunting down monsters and completing those contracts. If W3 was about any character it was about Ciri. Even this isn't something I'd agree with. W3 was about the characters and the dynamic between them. This is why, pardon my french, the game was fucking amazing.

Now look at Skryim. The character is magically dragonborn. Great, but why? Draqons re-appear. Cool, Alduin is coming to town. The main plot doesn't deliver. It doesn't help you identify with the main character because they don't have a stake in the story. They're just there. It doesn't help you identify with any of the characters, really. Everything is forcefully thrust into a story. A story you can largely ignore. The story in this game is a joke at best. You can't identify with it. You can't feel it, or empathize with any of the characters in it. It's unimportant and largely not memorable. The strength of Skyrim was the freedom. The side-quests and exploring the world.

You could argue this was because the writers simply weren't on the same planet as the CDPR writers. I'd agree with this assertion. It was also because complete freedom and open-worldness makes epic story telling incredibly difficult. There are too many variables to account for between the character options and the narrative. The end result is more general main plots, side-quests and none of the magic, or emotion, going into the experience. You don't feel it, it's just something to do.

None of this is to say you cannot have an open world with a great deal of player freedom and an epic narrative, side by side. The simple fact is I cannot count the number of games succeeding at this on one hand. It's not because nobody has tried. It's because it's way more difficult to pull it off. The few games succeeding had a very particular narrative, where limitless character builds could easily fit with the story.

The strength at CDPR is clearly their story telling ability. The best way to play to this strength is to either define the story line, including the character, or limit the character persona's and account for all of the options in the story line. Almost every RPG worth it's salt has done one or the other.

I disagree partially with that i play kenshi a lot and is a open world isometric rpg with tactical elements were you create your character and while the game is not very narrative is engaging and i felt that character 1000 times more mine than witcher3 or skyrim.

There are a lot of games that you start as a generic character and during the adventure you feel immersed and you feel actually your character.

I can provide some examples.
Morrowind,Vampire bloodlines,Pillars of eternity,Divinity original sin 2 (even the first but the second is way more improved on this)

Characterization of your character always been an important part of rpg's having a more defined character is good for action adventure games that with the time evolved as "Action/RPG" but is not optimal for feeling the character yours.

It doesn matter how well the main character is written if is too much defined it is not your character is a premade one.

There are of course exceptions for example Planescape Torment were your character is defined but you have so many different answer in a single dialogue that you could define what kind of person Nameless was.

 

[itsmeaagain]

In my opinion, The Witcher 3 blowed up and it doesn't feel repetitive at all, I don't get tired from TW3.
Every time I play it, it feels like I'm always entering a new world and it feels great!

 

[Snowflakez]

I disagree partially with that i play kenshi a lot and is a open world isometric rpg with tactical elements were you create your character and while the game is not very narrative is engaging and i felt that character 1000 times more mine than witcher3 or skyrim.

There are a lot of games that you start as a generic character and during the adventure you feel immersed and you feel actually your character.

I can provide some examples.
Morrowind,Vampire bloodlines,Pillars of eternity,Divinity original sin 2 (even the first but the second is way more improved on this)

Characterization of your character always been an important part of rpg's having a more defined character is good for action adventure games that with the time evolved as "Action/RPG" but is not optimal for feeling the character yours.

It doesn matter how well the main character is written if is too much defined it is not your character is a premade one.

There are of course exceptions for example Planescape Torment were your character is defined but you have so many different answer in a single dialogue that you could define what kind of person Nameless was.

Kenshi is a phenomenal game, and a true diamond in the rough. I've been backing it since it first popped up in Early Access, when it was literally just an empty desert with bandits, crappy animations, and dull towns.

How far it's come.

 

[kofeiiniturpa]

...

I think we're talking cross each other since I can't really relate to all you're saying in regards to what I've said.. For example... I'm not defending Skyrim. At all. I'm agreeing it's a bad example of the use of narrative in an open character game.

But I also do not give Witcher 3 more slack than I think it deserves - I don't think it's "fucking amazing". It's essentially a generally well written story draped around a mediocre at best game. The heavy story drivenness and cinematic nature made sure of that. And Geralt is tied to everything that happens so closely and irremovably that he really among the centerpieces of the story. In all senses that matter here. And Skyrim uses the same kind of tactic even more heavily with the PC being the chosen one to save the world. My idea, as I've said, is closer to how Fallout did it.

And if I had to choose between good story and mediocre gameplay and the vice versa, I'd always choose the latter. That so few games like that has been made is no reason to not try.

You must have hated Witcher 3.

I didn't hate it, but it took me over a year to finish because it got too boring at some point. The gameplay wasn't fun enough to carry it.

Like I said above, it's a well written story around a mediocre game, and I'd rather have the balance be closer to the center or gameplay than the former. Especially with Cyberpunk.

 

[ooodrin]

While I generally lean towards more defined protagonists I have to say: this approach carries the big risk as well, having story and dialogue tailor made for him/her amounts to nothing if the audience end up hating the protagonist's set personality. Case in point: Mass Effect Andromeda and Ryders, the most defined and most disliked protagonists in BW history.

 

[itsmeaagain]

I disagree, didn't think Fallout was that good, not saying that it's bad because it's not but I don't feel so immersive in the world as I feel in Witcher 3, there's something in Witcher 3 that "pulls" out the player into the world.

 

[Mebrilia]

Yes but in witcher 3 you were never supposed to create your character in Cyberpunk 2077 you do. There is a big difference between a game with a set protagonist and a custom made ones.

 

[Rawls]

Yes but in witcher 3 you were never supposed to create your character in Cyberpunk 2077 you do. There is a big difference between a game with a set protagonist and a custom made ones.

Well what they've described is a custom made character. The question is how much customization is there? It may or may not be enough for each individual, but it clearly is a customized character, with varying appearances and backstories.

 

[itsmeaagain]

Yes but in witcher 3 you were never supposed to create your character in Cyberpunk 2077 you do. There is a big difference between a game with a set protagonist and a custom made ones.

Yeah, you're right, in that aspect, Fallout has a great character customization!