Video Game Philosophy - a conversation

+
Greetings and salutations, earthlings.

I'd like to talk about what I find makes a good open world role playing game and, conversely, what can very quickly sink an open world RPG.

So, for starters, the success of the game is dependent on the player's experience.
This is fundamental and self-evident, yes?
Even if your personal goal is to use the game to make money the only way you're going to get what you want is to make the game an experience that your consumers want to pay for. An open world RPG means you have created a fantastical world that we get to run around in, explore and live vicariously through our avatar within. This means we want to do what WE want to do... not what you think we should be doing. I want to go anywhere I can get to. I want to do anything I can. Consequences are fine. Bullying the player onto the next set cue... yeah, uhmm. Only if you want really irate players.

So a couple suggestions:

1) Lay off my guy.
By this I mean, unless absolutely necessary, don't do anything to curtail my ability to control my avatar. Every single time you change, hamper, reign-in or otherwise interfere with the way the avatar responds to the player... you're in the way. This is almost ALWAYS a mistake because you're preventing the player from playing the game the way (s)he wants.
Don't do that.
REALLY.
Every time you do that you're grabbing the wheel.
Ever try grabbing the wheel in a car when some old-guy is driving? I don't recommend it.
See, what's happening from the player's perspective, if you've done your job right anyway, is that we are both emotionally invested and RESPONSIBLE FOR the success and well-being of our avatar. Because of that every time you guys grab the wheel you cause immediate stress and anxiety for the player... who often has no idea what is going on until after... whatever... happens. To the player this often feels like driving down the highway when, suddenly, the car stops responding to the steering wheel.
Scary, right?
For us too.... because we care about the characters that we are responsible for and the controls aren't doing what we expect them to.
Now I get that sometimes, for story purposes, you need to bully us around a little but, seriously... do this as rarely as possible and only when there is no other option. (I don't mean when I'm being hit by explosions or walking hip deep in water. I'm referring to bullying the player about to accommodate YOUR NEEDS.)

2) Don't think for me.
Please...
PLEASE...
stop trying to think for me. You have the entire world to play with. As long as the controls are consistent and intuitive you can teach me what to do... and then it's my responsibility, right? Teach me that red health bar = steel sword & white health bar = silver sword... and then get out of the way. It's my job. It's my responsibility. I don't need a script to decide when I'm in combat (that was your first and biggest mistake in TW3). I don't need a script to decide what weapon I'm using. I don't need a script preventing me from opening a door or my inventory or anything else.
it's the PLAYER's job to play the game.
Every time you play the game FOR me... you're in the way. Especially in an open world RPG.

So: Create a gorgeous open world with lots of things to do (check, you guys do a great job in that respect) that unfolds dynamically and intuitively for the player. Eh... you did a good job in TW3 but Cyberpunk is kinda clunky that way. Having every job (that you have the SC to do) already on the map is... meh.
I mean don't get me wrong it's not terrible. It's just nowhere near as good as good be.
Create a player interface that gives us the ability to do what we want when we want (seriously... no walk toggle for M&KB?) and then get out of the way. Don't mess with it. Every single time you do it feels like you're passing the buck and saddling the player with an unnecessary aggravation.

Finally, and yes this is me telling you your business but... I kinda feel like it's necessary... the development team lead NEEDS TO play the game. You need to know what kind of experience you're crafting for the player. If you don't do this it's OBVIOUS. I know you guys didn't play test the game (past a certain point, anyway) because the gameplay itself is often unnecessarily frustrating. (Trash underfoot constantly changing the player's Z-axis during aiming, the weird and counterintuitive follow mechanic (instead of a walk toggle), the constant, clunky hand-holdy way the objective markers update... I really don't need the step by step, guys.) I mean even the way T-Bug talks to the player in Konpeki is, well, kind of insulting. There's literally no room in CP2077 for the player to think for themselves.

It's an open world RPG. I want to do EVERYTHING.... my way.

Alright, I think that's the end of this post.
Cheers and carry on.
Post automatically merged:

Addendum: in the SE corner of Northside the only way north involves going through an alley that can't be driven through with a car.... and that's the way the mapping / pathing directs me.
PLAY
YOUR
GAME
Post automatically merged:

Oh, and double tapping to holster my weapon works less than half the time.
Post automatically merged:

And the text added to the waypoints occasionally makes it very difficult to actually see the street.
 
Last edited:

Guest 4400165

Guest
Greetings and salutations, earthlings.

I'd like to talk about what I find makes a good open world role playing game and, conversely, what can very quickly sink an open world RPG.

So, for starters, the success of the game is dependent on the player's experience.
This is fundamental and self-evident, yes?
Even if your personal goal is to use the game to make money the only way you're going to get what you want is to make the game an experience that your consumers want to pay for. An open world RPG means you have created a fantastical world that we get to run around in, explore and live vicariously through our avatar within. This means we want to do what WE want to do... not what you think we should be doing. I want to go anywhere I can get to. I want to do anything I can. Consequences are fine. Bullying the player onto the next set cue... yeah, uhmm. Only if you want really irate players.

So a couple suggestions:

1) Lay off my guy.
By this I mean, unless absolutely necessary, don't do anything to curtail my ability to control my avatar. Every single time you change, hamper, reign-in or otherwise interfere with the way the avatar responds to the player... you're in the way. This is almost ALWAYS a mistake because you're preventing the player from playing the game the way (s)he wants.
Don't do that.
REALLY.
Every time you do that you're grabbing the wheel.
Ever try grabbing the wheel in a car when some old-guy is driving? I don't recommend it.
See, what's happening from the player's perspective, if you've done your job right anyway, is that we are both emotionally invested and RESPONSIBLE FOR the success and well-being of our avatar. Because of that every time you guys grab the wheel you cause immediate stress and anxiety for the player... who often has no idea what is going on until after... whatever... happens. To the player this often feels like driving down the highway when, suddenly, the car stops responding to the steering wheel.
Scary, right?
For us too.... because we care about the characters that we are responsible for and the controls aren't doing what we expect them to.
Now I get that sometimes, for story purposes, you need to bully us around a little but, seriously... do this as rarely as possible and only when there is no other option. (I don't mean when I'm being hit by explosions or walking hip deep in water. I'm referring to bullying the player about to accommodate YOUR NEEDS.)

2) Don't think for me.
Please...
PLEASE...
stop trying to think for me. You have the entire world to play with. As long as the controls are consistent and intuitive you can teach me what to do... and then it's my responsibility, right? Teach me that red health bar = steel sword & white health bar = silver sword... and then get out of the way. It's my job. It's my responsibility. I don't need a script to decide when I'm in combat (that was your first and biggest mistake in TW3). I don't need a script to decide what weapon I'm using. I don't need a script preventing me from opening a door or my inventory or anything else.
it's the PLAYER's job to play the game.
Every time you play the game FOR me... you're in the way. Especially in an open world RPG.

So: Create a gorgeous open world with lots of things to do (check, you guys do a great job in that respect) that unfolds dynamically and intuitively for the player. Eh... you did a good job in TW3 but Cyberpunk is kinda clunky that way. Having every job (that you have the SC to do) already on the map is... meh.
I mean don't get me wrong it's not terrible. It's just nowhere near as good as good be.
Create a player interface that gives us the ability to do what we want when we want (seriously... no walk toggle for M&KB?) and then get out of the way. Don't mess with it. Every single time you do it feels like you're passing the buck and saddling the player with an unnecessary aggravation.

Finally, and yes this is me telling you your business but... I kinda feel like it's necessary... the development team lead NEEDS TO play the game. You need to know what kind of experience you're crafting for the player. If you don't do this it's OBVIOUS. I know you guys didn't play test the game (past a certain point, anyway) because the gameplay itself is often unnecessarily frustrating. (Trash underfoot constantly changing the player's Z-axis during aiming, the weird and counterintuitive follow mechanic (instead of a walk toggle), the constant, clunky hand-holdy way the objective markers update... I really don't need the step by step, guys.) I mean even the way T-Bug talks to the player in Konpeki is, well, kind of insulting. There's literally no room in CP2077 for the player to think for themselves.

It's an open world RPG. I want to do EVERYTHING.... my way.

Alright, I think that's the end of this post.
Cheers and carry on.
Post automatically merged:

Addendum: in the SE corner of Northside the only way north involves going through an alley that can't be driven through with a car.... and that's the way the mapping / pathing directs me.
PLAY
YOUR
GAME
Post automatically merged:

Oh, and double tapping to holster my weapon works less than half the time.
Post automatically merged:

And the text added to the waypoints occasionally makes it very difficult to actually see the street.
Hooo, boy, what a post! I've seen all those complaints scattered in different relevant threads already, you just put it all in one post.

(In TW3 there is a toggle option in the settings "manual sword draw" or something like that, which won't automatically draw any sword upon entering combat, just FYI.)

I understand your willing to have more freedom, but the games were doing ridiculous hand-holding for years, open-world or not. You might be late for almost complete freedom by a decade or two, I don't think the industry will change that anytime soon, unless it's gonna become a trend. Everything is becoming easier, more convenient, idiot-proof (as much as possible), so as many people can get into a particular game and still have a good time, otherwise people will find it boring, confusing and hard. Some game are trying to be subtle about it, some are very blunt with that (like the Assassin's Creed franchise and its clones).

Doing things your way - you can. Approach 95% of the missions like you want, this isn't GTA. Every game has a set of rules and boundaries, you're free to do whatever the hell you want within those limits. Trying to play basketball with a baseball bat is a dumb thing to do. You either accept the rules and play by them or simply don't play the game, man. Not everything should be for everyone.

Having every gig/side-mission on the map - it's my 3rd playthrough, no mini-map and most of the HUD elements off. I don't look at the map, I check the journal. Activities pop-up whenever I'm nearby and then I decide if I wanna/can do it, doesn't feel like the game shoves them in my face yelling "DO IT!", you're not forced to use it. Nope, it feels natural and I do it on my own pace. Best playthrough I've had so far. You should try it.
 
I agree completely with OP, nothing takes me out of a game than sudden loss of control of my character and a restriction on what I can do. There is no greater offender than Red Dead Redemption II, they take handholding to the extreme (to the point where it's not even a game, more like a movie with the occasional button prompts) and ZERO brain activity, ZERO mental challenge.... and yet it sold upwards of 35 million copies

In CP2077 from the start of the game, the floating orange quest marker is jarring and blocks the graphics on the screen. I have no idea why they implemented this. Must appeal to retarded console casuals because the game is "too hard" for them" Give me a break.
Fortunately there's a mod that lets you deactivate the quest tracker with a keybind. I only use minimap as "gps" when I'm driving. It's much better when you can observe the world and become immersed without the ridiculous orange marker telling you 'GO HERE----> 85 meters in this direction"
 
Last edited:
this is the wrong type of game for you lol. that said I share a lot of your sensibilities. hopefully starfield will be a contender to skyrim, it's been sitting atop the open-world (with player agency) throne for too long
 
I have no issue with some "hand holding", especially when it comes to narrative direction. Games primarily focused on telling a story first are almost always more interesting to me than games that are primarily focused on being sandboxes first. One of the tradeoffs for a story of any real quality, length and depth is that the player has to give up some narrative freedom in the name of the story. Something more narratively open like Skyrim or Fallout ends up having a very uninspiring story in my opinion. They very rarely stir me to feel anything beyond "oh that's cool." It's just something to dump a lot of hours into.

Don't get me wrong, they're fine at what they are, I just don't enjoy games that prioritize player agency over story as much as I do more narrative directed games like Mass Effect, RDR2, Horizon Zero Dawn, TW3, God of War IV, and Cyberpunk. So I'm fine with a game whose philosophy is to show us a story first, and allow us freedom within the general path of that story second. I actually prefer the emphasis that way.
 
Last edited:
I have no issue with some "hand holding", especially when it comes to narrative direction. Games primarily focused on telling a story first are almost always more interesting to me than games that are primarily focused on being sandboxes first. One of the tradeoffs for a story of any real quality, length and depth is that the player has to give up some narrative freedom in the name of the story. Something more narratively open like Skyrim or Fallout ends up having a very uninspiring story in my opinion. They very rarely stir me to feel anything beyond "oh that's cool." It's just something to dump a lot of hours into.

Don't get me wrong, they're fine at what they are, I just don't enjoy games that prioritize player agency over story as much as I do more narrative directed games like Mass Effect, RDR2, Horizon Zero Dawn, TW3, God of War IV, and Cyberpunk. So I'm fine with a game whose philosophy is to show us a story first, and allow us freedom within the general path of that story second. I actually prefer the emphasis that way.
I just wrote almost the exact same post on steam in response to yet another "why isn't there a happy ending" thread.

If you want more player freedom, you necessarily have to compromise on the quality of the storytelling.

Stories work by setting up bowling pins and then knocking them down one by one until there are only a few pins left. If you want a story that is thematically coherent and dramatically satisfying, it necessarily must at various points take the plot points it has introduced and reduce them to their natural conclusions. You can't just keep adding bowling pins (that's how you get a soap opera) or forgetting the bowling pins that were already there (that's how a soap opera gets cancelled).

If you want to have maximum player choice, by necessity you need a more open plot the outcome of which doesn't matter, matters much less, or is simply incoherent. So you get a weaker story.

That's the deal.
 
Last edited:

Guest 3847602

Guest
Stories work by setting up bowling pins and then knocking them down one by one until there are only a few pins left. If you want a story that is thematically coherent and dramatically satisfying, it necessarily must at various points take the plot points it has introduced and reduce them to their natural conclusions. You can't just keep adding bowling pins or forgetting the bowling pins that were already there.
Which is also the best argument against "main quest should have been about the merc life, V rising through the ranks and making it big in NC". It sounds unimaginably boring and cliche.
 
Which is also the best argument against "main quest should have been about the merc life, V rising through the ranks and making it big in NC". It sounds unimaginably boring and cliche.
Yes, that and hanging out with Jackie for a protracted period of time. To me, Jackie was a bowling pin waiting to be knocked down.

I get why people might want that type of experience. Just it wouldn't be the game for me.
 
Greetings and salutations, earthlings.

I'd like to talk about what I find makes a good open world role playing game and, conversely, what can very quickly sink an open world RPG.

So, for starters, the success of the game is dependent on the player's experience.
This is fundamental and self-evident, yes?
Even if your personal goal is to use the game to make money the only way you're going to get what you want is to make the game an experience that your consumers want to pay for. An open world RPG means you have created a fantastical world that we get to run around in, explore and live vicariously through our avatar within. This means we want to do what WE want to do... not what you think we should be doing. I want to go anywhere I can get to. I want to do anything I can. Consequences are fine. Bullying the player onto the next set cue... yeah, uhmm. Only if you want really irate players.

So a couple suggestions:

1) Lay off my guy.
By this I mean, unless absolutely necessary, don't do anything to curtail my ability to control my avatar. Every single time you change, hamper, reign-in or otherwise interfere with the way the avatar responds to the player... you're in the way. This is almost ALWAYS a mistake because you're preventing the player from playing the game the way (s)he wants.
Don't do that.
REALLY.
Every time you do that you're grabbing the wheel.
Ever try grabbing the wheel in a car when some old-guy is driving? I don't recommend it.
See, what's happening from the player's perspective, if you've done your job right anyway, is that we are both emotionally invested and RESPONSIBLE FOR the success and well-being of our avatar. Because of that every time you guys grab the wheel you cause immediate stress and anxiety for the player... who often has no idea what is going on until after... whatever... happens. To the player this often feels like driving down the highway when, suddenly, the car stops responding to the steering wheel.
Scary, right?
For us too.... because we care about the characters that we are responsible for and the controls aren't doing what we expect them to.
Now I get that sometimes, for story purposes, you need to bully us around a little but, seriously... do this as rarely as possible and only when there is no other option. (I don't mean when I'm being hit by explosions or walking hip deep in water. I'm referring to bullying the player about to accommodate YOUR NEEDS.)

2) Don't think for me.
Please...
PLEASE...
stop trying to think for me. You have the entire world to play with. As long as the controls are consistent and intuitive you can teach me what to do... and then it's my responsibility, right? Teach me that red health bar = steel sword & white health bar = silver sword... and then get out of the way. It's my job. It's my responsibility. I don't need a script to decide when I'm in combat (that was your first and biggest mistake in TW3). I don't need a script to decide what weapon I'm using. I don't need a script preventing me from opening a door or my inventory or anything else.
it's the PLAYER's job to play the game.
Every time you play the game FOR me... you're in the way. Especially in an open world RPG.

So: Create a gorgeous open world with lots of things to do (check, you guys do a great job in that respect) that unfolds dynamically and intuitively for the player. Eh... you did a good job in TW3 but Cyberpunk is kinda clunky that way. Having every job (that you have the SC to do) already on the map is... meh.
I mean don't get me wrong it's not terrible. It's just nowhere near as good as good be.
Create a player interface that gives us the ability to do what we want when we want (seriously... no walk toggle for M&KB?) and then get out of the way. Don't mess with it. Every single time you do it feels like you're passing the buck and saddling the player with an unnecessary aggravation.

Finally, and yes this is me telling you your business but... I kinda feel like it's necessary... the development team lead NEEDS TO play the game. You need to know what kind of experience you're crafting for the player. If you don't do this it's OBVIOUS. I know you guys didn't play test the game (past a certain point, anyway) because the gameplay itself is often unnecessarily frustrating. (Trash underfoot constantly changing the player's Z-axis during aiming, the weird and counterintuitive follow mechanic (instead of a walk toggle), the constant, clunky hand-holdy way the objective markers update... I really don't need the step by step, guys.) I mean even the way T-Bug talks to the player in Konpeki is, well, kind of insulting. There's literally no room in CP2077 for the player to think for themselves.

It's an open world RPG. I want to do EVERYTHING.... my way.

Alright, I think that's the end of this post.
Cheers and carry on.
Post automatically merged:

Addendum: in the SE corner of Northside the only way north involves going through an alley that can't be driven through with a car.... and that's the way the mapping / pathing directs me.
PLAY
YOUR
GAME
Post automatically merged:

Oh, and double tapping to holster my weapon works less than half the time.
Post automatically merged:

And the text added to the waypoints occasionally makes it very difficult to actually see the street.
I do see what you're saying about pure RPG and handholding, if I want to side with Evelyn and take out Dex during the meeting at the Afterlife then gun my way out taking out Rogue, Panam and Claire as collateral damage on the way back through the door it should be an option. The story could still unfold, the heist could still happen. I could still end up with Johnny provided they script an alternative catastrophic head injury, he'd just be more hostile.
It's also a lot more work for the devs to write and imagine all the possible twists I can concieve of. I guess that's the real difference between a narrative game and a real world pnp RPG. There is no GM to go "hang on let's have a quick tea break while I think about what you clowns just did"
 
Last edited:
Definitely agree more than less.
And it all narrows down to having more pathways and more extensive storylines beyond the main one. E.g. I like such small things as,
if you didn't ask Mateo about Lizzie as a side question, you'll never get Lizzie's gun, apparently :facepalm:
On the other hand, I kind of enjoy the non-agree-ability of certain situations, inevitability? If that makes sense.
You have a "choice", yes, but also I wish consequences were more severe, sometimes.
 
I'm pretty sure the OP is preaching to the choir on this. CDPR know about the importance of player agency in this game. But agency has it's limits. Your not really a hotshot Merc with infinite lives. Your, just like us, an everyday person. Making you that hotshot merc requires a lot of smoke and mirrors. There are limits to what you can do with the technology. Who knows, in the future, we may be streaming games run by Quantum frames running super intelligent AIs who will run all the puppets allowing for almost infinite variation in gaming experience. Maybe they will be able to tailor it to each player.

I have played games that give total player agency. The best example I can think of is ARK. I played that on my own server by myself for months. I refused even to look at the wiki because the survival, building and taming mechanics were giving me such a fabulous narrative full of triumphs and Pc thru the window tragedies. The mechanics gave the narrative direction and environment and I filled it out the rest in my head. One of my best gaming experiences. If you're ignorant of ARK and like roleplaying I heartily recommend it(GET ARK SERVER MANAGER. stay off the wiki. use it sparingly when desperate, get some like minded friends if u like but avoid everyone else like the plague)

But CP2077 Is a very different kind of game. I would also describe it as one of my best gaming experiences precisely because they have worked hard to find a balance between a Rich narrative and player Agency. This game has many faults but there is a reason it survived such a ridiculous car crash of a launch. It survived because it tells an excellent story, in an amazing environment, very well.

I love making my own narrative. I like to think I'm very good at it but I'm not as good as everyone out there and, if I want their narratives, I will have to go with the flow sometimes.
 
It's an open world RPG. I want to do EVERYTHING.... my way.
Honestly, I usually tend to dislike games that let the player do everything because the end up being bland and boring.

I have no issue with some "hand holding", especially when it comes to narrative direction. Games primarily focused on telling a story first are almost always more interesting to me than games that are primarily focused on being sandboxes first. One of the tradeoffs for a story of any real quality, length and depth is that the player has to give up some narrative freedom in the name of the story. Something more narratively open like Skyrim or Fallout ends up having a very uninspiring story in my opinion. They very rarely stir me to feel anything beyond "oh that's cool." It's just something to dump a lot of hours into.

Don't get me wrong, they're fine at what they are, I just don't enjoy games that prioritize player agency over story as much as I do more narrative directed games like Mass Effect, RDR2, Horizon Zero Dawn, TW3, God of War IV, and Cyberpunk. So I'm fine with a game whose philosophy is to show us a story first, and allow us freedom within the general path of that story second. I actually prefer the emphasis that way.
Well, @Rawls ends up to perfectly summarise my opinion on this subject matter.
 
Hey,
Personally, I like when RPGs:
- have denser mechanics interactions
- have at least 3 ways to complete quests
- allow for "replacements" (e.g. player doesn't have to find a quest-specific piece of meat to feed a dog, but can use any from inventory)
- have a good content/map size/playtime ratio
- use a world as an initiative to navigate the player
- use a setting to define themselves (quests, characters, motives, mechanics, UI,...)
- have non-forgiving, but understandable choices and consequences
- ...
 
Top Bottom