Weekly Poll 10/1/2018 - The Gunplay!

[Harthwain]

As long as it is not pure FPS combat, yes.

Of course. This goes without saying.

Bloodlines. My favourite game, or one of.

Deus Ex 1, same story.

Or Kingdom Come: Deliverance. But yes, indeed. All of these are pretty much the reason why I said: "it has already been done, so we know it's possible." Also, all of them are part of action-RPG genre, like The Witcher series, which is also considered an RPG, despite its combat system.

 

[Sardukhar]

Or Kingdom Come: Deliverance. But yes, indeed. All of these are pretty much the reason why I said: "it has already been done, so we know it's possible." Also, all of them are part of action-RPG genre, like The Witcher series, which is also considered an RPG, despite its combat system.

This is why I'm so not-fond of hard definitions. Sure, some things are not RPGs - Doom, Forza.

Others actively encourage you to make choices and suffer or succeed from them. That's what I look for.

I would still prefer gunplay that reflects my character skill not my own. Definitely more Fallout 2 than Fallout 4 in that respect.

But I think that's doable.

 

[Restlessdingo32]

As long as it is not pure FPS combat, yes.
If there is no stats/skills to influence the results of such actions, then it becomes an action-adventure game.
Actually stats and skills influences are the only thing that define the line between A-RPG and action-adventure games, because everything else can be found in both genres (even if at different rates).

True.... trouble is getting a combat system where the player has control but character attributes... limit the player into an appropriate range befitting the character. I'm not sure what that would look like either. So far every game I know of attempting it has ended up with character attributes influencing combat but failing to nail down that range properly. AKA, action RPG (whether the name is an oxymoron is besides the point ).

Look at W3. I can change my character build in a number of ways to completely change the way combat goes down. Rely on swordplay heavily to handle a group of 5 bandits or cycle aard with one shot kills (or use bombs... or igni and watch them dance). The issue is one player can beat those bandits when they're equal level and another can do it if there is a considerable gap in either direction. That last part is what Suh and Kofe take issue with.

I'd be alright with it because game devs tend to lean toward the norm. I'd much prefer stricter limits on the player though. Again, no idea what that would look like. I wouldn't be opposed to a system where it's all based on entirely character attributes either. As long as it feels right with the rest of the game play. Highly subjective maybe... but it's what I got .

 

[Suhiira]

Okay, let's go with this then. Let's assume the minute the player is in control of the crosshair it's an action combat system. Is this unacceptable? Is it acceptable if the abilities of the character still factor heavily into how "good" the character is at handling scenarios where they need to shoot something? Is it acceptable if other areas of the game behave like an RPG would, and rely upon character agency? My guess is your answers are no across the board. My answers would be maybe, yes and yes.

It's not a matter of like, dislike, acceptable, or unacceptable, it's one of how a games mechanics determine the nature of the game. Take a game like "Thief", it doesn't matter in the slightest if it's combat system is FPS, RPG, real-time, or turn based, it's a "stealth" game. Tho some choose to ignore it I've never once suggested the current FPS system used by CP2077 be scrapped, apparently the mere idea that an RPG option be included is abhorrent.

Going further, what would it look like if the player did not have control over the aim? How is the combat going to behave?

Just by asking this question I have to assume you've never played a non FPS game or you wouldn't need to ask it.

What I suggest it pretty simple. When you start a new game you select to play it in FPS or RPG mode. If FPS the game in completely unchanged from what we've seen (hopefully improved tho), if RPG it also plays the same EXCEPT that during combat you have the option to activate RPG mode by pausing, a full stop, not a bullet-time slow down. Then something akin to Fallouts VATS system activates. There you select your general target (note, NOT specific body locations, just NPC 'A', 'B', or whatever) and when you unpause the game uses the character stats, skills, weapon data, etc. to determine if the shot(s) hit, classic RPG combat. Note, those factors are NOT used in FPS combat mode, that's purely player skill based.

Yes, there are other specific details I didn't mention, but that's the overall system.

 

[Poison19]

Then something akin to Fallouts VATS system activates. There you select your general target (note, NOT specific body locations, just NPC 'A', 'B', or whatever)

Why it needs to be in different mode? If you not using pause, combat is still "FPS"?
Why not body locations?
How about movement after your pause? Character just staying still?

 

[Restlessdingo32]

It's not a matter of like, dislike, acceptable, or unacceptable, it's one of how a games mechanics determine the nature of the game.

From an academic view, sure. It comes down to whether the game is "fun" or not. Different people enjoy different entertainment. Entertainment could be a book, movie or, in this case, a game. Acceptable indicates having interest in the game. Even though it might not truly be using RPG combat mechanics.

Tho some choose to ignore it I've never once suggested the current FPS system used by CP2077 be scrapped, apparently the mere idea that an RPG option be included is abhorrent.

I did not think you did suggest it needs scrapped. I am interested in your opinion. Hence the question. I'm not opposed to an RPG option either. I just know how these things tend to go. Multiple options means more work, which translates to more cost. As much as I'd love CDPR to put the work in... I'm too cynical to think they will. Hopefully I'm wrong.

Just by asking this question I have to assume you've never played a non FPS game or you wouldn't need to ask it.

I'm well aware of how non FPS games, in this case RPG's, handle combat. And yes, I've explored damn near every genre at one point or another. I still think there is a lot of room for improvement in the systems used by past RPG's. This applies to true RPG's and pseudo-RPG's (action RPG) equally.

Note, those factors are NOT used in FPS combat mode, that's purely player skill based.

The only concern here is it becomes one or the other, with no middle ground. Either the player is close to irrelevant or the character is completely irrelevant. You've made your point clear on the middle ground. I still see it as a possibility to make both the player and character relevant, assuming the average player.

 

[Suhiira]

Why it needs to be in different mode?

Because the two modes are incompatible.
CP2077 will (at launch or later) have a multi-player option, you can't have some players in FPS mode and others in RPG at the same time.

If you not using pause, combat is still "FPS"?

Yes.
Sometimes the combat isn't all that difficult (you're vastly superior to the NPCs) so why mandate RPG mode?
K.I.S.S. - Keep It Simple Stupid
Besides the FPS gameplay exists, and some people will only wish to use RPG mode for "Boss Fights" (which I sincerely wish weren't in CP2077 at all, but according to the trailer they are.)

Why not body locations?

I did say "Yes, there are other specific details I didn't mention, but that's the overall system." But since you don't seem to grasp the basics I didn't want to confuse you with specifics.

How about movement after your pause? Character just staying still?

Depends what you tell them to do.
Move to that cover then fire?
Fire then move to that cover?
Fire in place?

You seem to be totally unfamiliar with non FPS gameplay.
That or you're being obtuse on purpose.

Acceptable indicates having interest in the game. Even though it might not truly be using RPG combat mechanics.

And the games mechanics make no difference in what a player might, or might not, find interesting and fun in a game?

Multiple options means more work, which translates to more cost. As much as I'd love CDPR to put the work in... I'm too cynical to think they will. Hopefully I'm wrong.

As I've pointed out elsewhere not that much more.
Unlike most I am (or was before I retired) a programmer. I have a pretty darn good idea how much work, time, and money such an implementation would cost. And compared to the overall project it's essentially insignificant. I could easily do the whole system singlehandedly in a couple weeks or a month.

I still think there is a lot of room for improvement in the systems used by past RPG's. This applies to true RPG's and pseudo-RPG's (action RPG) equally.

Sure there is.
And this is an improvement.
Currently games are either (overall) FPS or RPG. No current game exists that's both (lots of games claim they're RPGs but anyone that actually knows anything about RPGs agrees. It's pure Marketing doubletalk). There's absolutely no reason this needs to be the case.

Why oppose innovation?

The only concern here is it becomes one or the other, with no middle ground. Either the player is close to irrelevant or the character is completely irrelevant. You've made your point clear on the middle ground. I still see it as a possibility to make both the player and character relevant, assuming the average player.

Because there is no middle ground.

Either the player is in control, or the character is.
Hybrid systems invariably fail to completely satisfy both groups.

Because either the player feels some control is taken from them by RPG mechanics, or that their characters skills are immaterial because player skills are required.

 

[gogmeister777]

a game should be judged on the sum of its parts when deciding what label to apply to it.

I think that's a fair point. What did the overall experience feel like during play?

I'd also say that I'm really not sure how important it is to 100% nail down a genre definition. RPG, Action RPG, FP Adventure? What does it matter? Either the mechanics work really well together or they don't.

To put it in a funny way, some people seem to be 'weaponizing' the term RPG so as to make it seem that CDPR are breaking some kind of deal, that they've sold out or that the end product they make won't be 'proper' unless it can absolutely fit the term in the strictest sense. It sometimes feels like they want to shame them into changing or adding things.

I'm no longer that fussed about strict definitions, gameplay elements have blended so much.

In 2000, I played two of the greatest games ever, Deus Ex and BGII. I happily waited to see DX crowned GotY and BGII win RPGotY. It was obvious. In my favourite couple of magazines though, Deus Ex won both categories I was scandalised. DX isn't a real RPG, sure stats effected gameplay but I was the one aiming, I was the one sneaking! It's a hybrid at best! Obviously though, most people playing DX felt like they had played an RPG and so that's what it was judged as.

18 years later and I'd happily describe CP2077, based on the demo, as either an RPG with FPS combat, or an Action RPG. However, the only important thing to me is how it plays since I'm lucky enough to enjoy a wide range of game types.

Hoping for Vampire/Deus Ex style combat is probably a waste of time. It's too niche. On the day of purchase, you'd hear from miles away the cry of gamers everywhere shouting 'What's this bullshit?!'.

Hoping for an entirely different additional combat mode? Again, it will probably only fulfill the needs of a small (tiny?) minority so, in my most cynical opinion, it's very unlikely. Would be wonderful if they did though since it would be double the game

Hey, I did have that *winky-wink* there in the post, though I admit there was a bit of unnecessary trickster attitude involved.

And trick me you did! Dammit kofe, I trusted you

I almost wrote a whole thing about how ridiculous and awful it was that he seemed to be essentially saying 'women can't handle skill points so screw all you veterans' whilst championing some kind of cause. I mean, I don't really know what his usual behaviour or writing is like and we do get responses from developers saying 'we don't care because we don't want people like you to buy our games anyway' so it didn't seem too far fetched. Grrr, I'll vet everything you write from now on, you rogue you

EDIT: Thank you Sard for revealing the treachery

 

[KakitaTatsumaru]

About the Gunplay, I think that an old Mass Effect system, where you can aim during pause would really help those like me who aren't in FPS.

 

[AlexiaRevan]

voted Mass effect like gunplay . I loved xcom way , but.....it can get old fast .

 

[Rawls]

Character attributes and skills (and an RNG ) are what make an RPG an RPG.

As you know, we disagree on this point. I will always believe that making choices within a role is the center of an RPG, not stats and skills. I could care less about my build in TW3 frankly ... which skills I choose, etc. It's the choices made by the character, and the consequences thereof, that make the story. Same was true for me in Mass Effect, Fallout, Baulders Gate, and etc.

 

[Suhiira]

As you know, we disagree on this point. I will always believe that making choices within a role is the center of an RPG, not stats and skills. I could care less about my build in TW3 frankly ... which skills I choose, etc. It's the choices made by the character, and the consequences thereof, that make the story. Same was true for me in Mass Effect, Fallout, Baulders Gate, and etc.

The thing is you make choices in any game, chess for instance. So that can't be a criteria for what type of game it is.

 

[Rawls]

The thing is you make choices in any game, chess for instance. So that can't be a criteria for what type of game it is.

Bah. You very well know the types of choices I mean. A persistent player driven character whose actions create a story is essential. To borrow from someone else:

An RPG features player-driven development of a persistent character via the making of consequential choices.

Playing a role is not defined by stats skills and random numbers. Oxford dictionary for Role-play - "a learning activity in which you behave in the way someone else would behave in a particular situation." Assuming the character's persona. Making choices as them. That's role playing.

EDIT: And option 3. (Sorry Sard)

 

[Sardukhar]

Reminder:

Gunplay Poll.

Gunplay.

Guuuunpllaaaay.

Not just the Is It An RPG Argument again.

 

[BontaHellion]

I remember after the gameplay demo most of the complains were about the damage numbers poping up and enemy sponginess.

 

[Poison19]

You seem to be totally unfamiliar with non FPS gameplay.
That or you're being obtuse on purpose.

Hold on chief :cautious: Stop trying to hang labels on people.

Your suggested pause akin to Fallout 3 VATS. It have huge difference from classic PRG turn based combat. And you never said that your "tactical pause" includes character movements, cover and anything besides shooting. These are important details.

Yes.
Sometimes the combat isn't all that difficult (you're vastly superior to the NPCs) so why mandate RPG mode?
K.I.S.S. - Keep It Simple Stupid
Besides the FPS gameplay exists, and some people will only wish to use RPG mode for "Boss Fights" (which I sincerely wish weren't in CP2077 at all, but according to the trailer they are.)

Game mode the only difference is your ability to tactical pause the game. That's lame.

 

[Restlessdingo32]

Sure there is.
And this is an improvement.
Currently games are either (overall) FPS or RPG. No current game exists that's both (lots of games claim they're RPGs but anyone that actually knows anything about RPGs agrees. It's pure Marketing doubletalk). There's absolutely no reason this needs to be the case.

Why oppose innovation?

Again, no disagreement here. I still know how these things go. Is there a reasonable reason against trying to provide multiple combat systems? Nope.... Unfortunately, reason isn't always going into the decision.

Because there is no middle ground.

Either the player is in control, or the character is.
Hybrid systems invariably fail to completely satisfy both groups.

Because either the player feels some control is taken from them by RPG mechanics, or that their characters skills are immaterial because player skills are required.

Hmm, I'm not sure how to explain this....

I would agree with the way you classify "RPG" vs "FPS". The disagreement isn't on what constitutes one or the other. The disagreement is you seem to think there is no reason to make an attempt at establishing a middle ground. Even if the middle ground isn't truly achievable. Even if the two modes of combat are polar opposites at a fundamental level.

Yes, I've played RPG's. Whether they use an action combat system or a true RPG combat system. I've also played first person shooters. I can tell you, from experience, there is a difference between the way combat feels in a pure FPS vs an action RPG. Even though both of these are action systems one has a progression system behind it. The progression system changes the way combat operates in a way where altering the character alters the operation. This provides meaning to those character attributes.

In Skyrim the player can use archery to solve combat situations. The option is available irrespective of character attributes. The character attributes still make a rather large difference in how the player will perform with archery in combat. The difference is so large it makes absolutely zero sense to rely heavily on archery, as the player, if the character lacks proficiency in archery. This is the middle ground.

From my own perspective I'd like to see the following....

Two systems of combat. The player gets to pick one at the game start or, if possible, switch between them during a game.

1. Pure RPG: Traditional, character driven combat. A system along the lines of your earlier description is a good starting point.
2. "Middle ground" Action Combat: Player has control but character attributes make "out of character" combat approaches highly inefficient.

You might ask, why not just do pure FPS and pure RPG? Well, the game is being marketed as an RPG. It makes sense to deliver a system true to the source material. In-line with "RPG" mechanics. It also makes sense to provide a system more in-line with an action RPG. Players looking for complete player control with no impact from character ability just sort of get screwed. To be fair, I suspect that type of player is somewhat rare. People in that category are more than likely consumed by competitive online FPS game play anyway.

 

[gogmeister777]

Players looking for complete player control with no impact from character ability just sort of get screwed. To be fair, I suspect that type of player is somewhat rare. People in that category are more than likely consumed by competitive online FPS game play anyway.

This is an important point. People who can only absolutely enjoy something in its purest form are in the minority of gamers and I don't think CDPR are setting out to cater to them, whether we are talking hardcore, I-won't-play-anything-else FPS'ers or hardcore RPG'ers. For most gamers, there's a great deal of overlap in enjoying different genres and that includes various types of gunplay.

I think by viewing the gunplay issue from the 'there are only two types of gamers CP2077 combat can be aimed at' we are unnecessarily constraining ourselves and creating a, how do I put it? A false premise?

Some people seem to feel that by having a middle ground, a 'hybrid system', that all a game can ever provide is a wishy washy combat system that cannot 'completely satisfy'. I think Su put forward this notion a few posts back.

Thing is, it's all highly subjective.

I'd describe DEx and System Shock 2 as two of my top three all time games and they definitely have hybrid gunplay. You know what my third one is? Witcher 3, which I'd argue is also a hybrid combat system. Those games completely satisfied me and, judging by the mountain of GotYs it won, it completely satisfied a lot of other people too. In fact it's not unusual to hear people say that those games are their GoaT.

Do those first two games 'completely satisfy' from purely a gunplay point of view? I mean, would you play them if they were 12 hour shooters with none of the other game mechanics/systems attached? Would a hardcore FPS'er have said, back in the day, 'I'd love to play Deus Ex but only if it involved combat and nothing else'? Probably not. But that's the thing, the game was never intended to be Doom with RPG elements, just like CP2077 doesn't intend to be one, just like it isn't intending (seemingly) on being a hardcore RPG experience with regards to gunplay either.

I loved Doom, Duke 3D, Shadow Warrior etc but I was completely satisfied with gunplay in DEx and SS2 because it fit so well within its own world.

This game, like many others these days, is its own game. Within the context of what it's trying to offer, in the context of its own identity, a hybrid gunplay system can definitely be completely satisfying as long as it's well designed and you're not requiring the game to be something it was never intended to be.

 

[kofeiiniturpa]

The main disagreement lies with the notion both player skill and character ability cannot simultaneously exert a large influence on combat results, in a reasonably balanced way. Yes, it's difficult to achieve such a goal. Yes, plenty of past developers have either screwed it up or claimed it was a goal when they had zero intention of doing it, or both. Neither of these make it impossible.

It's not impossible, but I think the best results would come from player- and characterskills governing different aspects all by themselves (i.e. my suggestion earlier in this thread).

In that regard, Morrowind was five to doing it right. The fault there was (along with the missing visual hit/miss responsiveness) that aim was double-gated to both, player and character. There is a simple remedy to that.

Careful Kofe ... you're using logic and common sense ... people might think you're turning into me.

I like to confuse people.

What about a situation in which the stats are preventing people from "playing the game well", unless they put points in associated skills?

The "well" part is very hard to define if it is based on how good the indiviudal player is before the game starts to distort the controls with RPG mechanics.

But yes. The disagreement here is the execution.

I'd want something that, with todays set of minds, could well be called exotic. Not something that's been chewed over for years and years by different games, but without any other way to solve it but to strip down the RPG part of the mechanics little by little.

It's more creative than make another generic turn based combat right from 90s.

Hah. No.

Not even if someone was actually asking for a 90's TB game.

If I put a piece of bread in my soup, it's not a sandwich, it's still soup. If I put sugar on top of my cat's droppings, it's not chocolate, it's still cat crap.

But here you are just decorating your main dish and.... a.... turd... with something extra. What's the problem in this discussion is much more profound than that. If your soup happens to be called chickensoup, but you notice that the meat there is actually turkey... it's not chicken soup anymore. If the cat turd you asked for to put your sugar on was actually shit of a wolverine... well, you get the picture; it's still shit, but not of a cat.

Darn you.

Don't worry. You'll get over it.

And trick me you did! Dammit kofe, I trusted you

I'll make it up to you somehow. Maybe I'll say something positive about the game.

 

[gogmeister777]

Sorry this is such a long post but I've been mulling it over awhile now and the comment below finally made me crack

I have a pretty darn good idea how much work, time, and money such an implementation would cost. And compared to the overall project it's essentially insignificant. I could easily do the whole system singlehandedly in a couple weeks or a month.

Before I go on, I'm not saying I don't want them to implement a second gunplay system based on pausing and issuing commands but I have to disagree with any claim that it's easy and wouldn't take much time.

My jaw hit the floor when I read that comment but you're a retired programmer (among many other things) and I'm just a guy who did a bit at college so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

However, the coding is probably the least of a game designers worries. It's all about how it feels, how it's designed. CDPR would want turn based gunplay to be of very high quality and for that they'd have try a multitude of designs, with all the balancing, skill calculations, playtesting and endless iteration that it necessitates until it was worthy. That's a huge amount of work, this is a huge AAA game. Imho, simply making the game pause and then choosing enemies to shoot, would stick out like a sore thumb compared to the quality of the other elements of the game.

I went back to the demo and looked at the main firefight. I was trying to imagine how a pause based, auto combat system would work. How often would we pause? Would we queue up actions?

If we don't queue, then we are going to be pausing almost constantly, nearly as much as in Baldur's Gate, I would imagine. You pause, choose to shoot someone, unpause. 2 seconds later you've missed and taken damage so you pause in order to use an inhaler. Unpause, resume shooting, 2 seconds go by, you do some damage but a grenade goes off so the damage you healed is already gone. You pause, spin the view about to look for new cover, choose your cover, unpause. You move to cover, wait for health regen cos your inhaler is dry, pause, look around to see where enemies are now, choose one, unpause and around and around it goes. We haven't even killed one of the 5+ enemies yet!

Now that was just for the most basic actions. What about jumping? Double jumping? Sliding into a room and turning to blow someones legs off? Wall climbing?

What percentage of players are going to need/enjoy this amount of pausing? Don't get me wrong, I MYSELF would enjoy it if it was well crafted but I know I'm in a small minority and luckily I enjoy lots of combat systems. I loved Valkyria Chronicles for example.

If, on the other hand, we queue actions then how will we 'guide the character' through them, given that it's a large FPP world with verticality? Some kind of ghost that you move around in a photo mode kind of way? A change to a top down view like they tried in Dragon Age Inquisition? That'd be possible but as you can see the work required to implement this system is already started to creep upwards and, more importantly, so is the challenge of actually making it with QUALITY. Queuing actions while standing still and not needing to move is fine (think KotOR and the small combat areas) but it looks like this game has been structured around quite a bit of fluidity with regards to the battleground.

Who knows? They might surprise us all and include an option like 5 or 7 but I doubt it for the reasons listed above.

Speaking of the poll, this forum is probably one of the best places to get 'pro turn based/paused combat' sentiment going and yet look at the results, even here.

We can disregard 6's 11% (though it seems probably they don't NEED a turn based system or else they would have said so since non-paused melee would require player skill too) and look at 5 and 7. 7 still requires a certain amount of player input/skill so I could argue that even those players don't desire turn based/VATS and that leaves us with 5 (turns/VATS) on 6.5%. That's, amazingly, smaller than the group who want the complete opposite, i.e Doom.

Yeah, it's only 108 voters but still, this is a cRPG forum with many people here having actually played, and loved, the pnp game so 6.5% shows a distinct lack of demand, imho. If it's like this here, what's it like in more mainstream areas of the gaming community?

If we are generous and include 5 and 7 together we have around 25% compared to the 64% who want some type of gunplay which allows player input. Otherwise it's 6% roughly vs 82%. If I were CDPR, I wouldn't go to the trouble of turn based as an additional gunplay mode. Too much work, too much risk, too little demand and therefore too little to gain...but hey, I'm not CDPR so there's still hope

I'll make it up to you somehow. Maybe I'll say something positive about the game.

Whoa there, I don't want to drive you to such crazy extremes my friend! It's ok, really, forget I mentioned it