No, I missed that one . It is a good example of what I'd like to avoid though. It appears too much like being an observer. You're not really in the combat so much as watching it occur. Pause game, pick target, rinse/repeat. All of the substance comes into play before you reach the encounter via the character development. It's one thing to do this from isometric or 3rd person perspective when you're in control of multiple characters, with different strengths and weaknesses. It's another when you control a single character from first person perspective. It ends up feeling clumsy and non-interactive.
A VATs style system might be an improvement but, to be totally honest, it's not my cup of tea. I don't see a reason to break game play, make the player select a body part and throw fancy camera angles and animations in their face. It may be designed to amplify the game play but accomplishes the exact opposite. It's unnecessary clutter. Combat turns into a mini-game instead of game play.
This is where the earlier statement came from. Moving the crosshair over a target and pressing fire is the selection mechanism. Instead of using a VATs system with a pause and select location concept allow input mapping to specific targeting zones. To target a leg vs a head doesn't require stopping play this way. You simply press a different button after "selecting" a target. From there just add some type of display showing hit chances for different targeting zones (maybe a small hud element pops up when you have the crosshair over or near a target). Toss an on-demand pause option in for good measure so the player can slow the process down when necessary. Whether it be due to lack of ability or to better deal with critical moments.
In a nutshell, VATs in real-time with an optional pause. The only player controlled aspects would be target selection (moving the crosshair to a target, anywhere) and pressing the shoot button. With the shoot button changing depending on which area of the target you intended to shoot. Whether you hit the intended area, how much damage is done, what happens as a result, etc. would be determined by character attributes.
I agree that if a VATS analogue is done, it should be done without breaking immersion, maybe something like what you're saying. I just think it should be optional at best. I'll also say that having an easy mode built-in can cheapen the feeling of achievement for beating the game, but that's neither here nor there, really.
Play Knights of the Old Republic. Fucking (am I allowed to say this?) play it. DO IT DO IT DO IT it's one of the best stories ever told in games. Better than Mass Effect 1, which was it's spiritual sequel, really. The only better story I can think of than KotOR is maybe Planescape: Torment.
I thought about that when I wrote my original post but didn't comment on it specifically because it was already very long and I simply don't think it effects my main point; that it would require a large amount of work, or at least it would if it were to reach the level of engagement that I suspect CDPR would demand.
Let's try it this way.
I listed everything I could think of that could require a significant amount to design, coding. art, or animation work. What did I miss that you think is going to be so time/effort intensive?
I WAS referring to jumping etc, in the context of pause/unpause COMBAT, specifically if queuing were involved for people who have difficulty with 'twitch' gameplay. Moving long distances in a large area with verticality would require some kind of navigation system. I think it's quite interesting to imagine how it would work but I guess it's a moot point now since you don't seem to like the queuing idea anyway. Fair enough.
It's not that I dislike queuing, it's just that I'm VERY intentionally keeping the design and implementation of my proposed RPG mode as simple as possible.
And being one of those people that has trouble with "twitch" games ... it's very rarely normal movement that's a problem. It's getting the cursor to the precise point on the screen and triggering a shot on a fraction of a second, or virtually any platformer (again they require precision and split-second timing) that's a problem. FPS gameplay is ultimately about hand-eye coordination and precise timing.
Actually I'm not surprised in the least.
FPS gamers tend to be a very vocal minority ... yes minority. They claim to represent the majority of gamers but sales and actual gameplay time figures show games like Candy Crush, Farmvile, and FIFA make it very clear they're a minority. Probably not much larger then the RPG fanbase.
*Awaits the inevitable backlash from the FPS fanboys/gurlz.*
Any RPG fan? Sure. ALL RPG fans? I doubt it. After all, I'm an RPG fan but I'm not fussed. I suppose one could give me the old 'no true Scotsman' bit here. Go ahead, I can take it
So again, from CDPR's point of view, is adding pause gunplay just too niche or out of character for their video game interpretation of CP?
Why? because no game has ever tried it before? That doesn't make it niche, that makes it innovative.
I'm in no way suggesting only pause-n-shoot, the current FPS system would function as is (and hopefully be improved), it's merely an option to play the game and an RPG rather then an FPS. I really don't understand why so many people object to the idea, I really, honestly, don't.
The only thing I can think of is they somehow feel threatened by the idea. Afraid most people will like it and less pure FPS games will be made.
The clearest way, and the most interesting possibly, would be for someone to give us a step by step run through of say... 41:10 to 41:30 of the gameplay trailer.
41:10-41:11: Finishes reloading.
41:11=41:17: To much incoming fire to expose yourself so player elects not to return fire and decided to switch weapons then apparently jumps.
41:18: Trigger pause, all action freezes as player selects target (NOT specific hit locations).
41:19: Shot is fired.
41:20: Trigger pause, all action freezes as player selects target (NOT specific hit locations).
41:21: Shot is fired.
41:22-41:25: Movement and reloading.
41:26: Trigger pause, all action freezes as player selects target (NOT specific hit locations).
41:27: Shot is fired.
41:28: Movement.
41:29: Trigger pause, all action freezes as player selects target (NOT specific hit locations).
41:30: Shot is fired.
So the consensus here is that it's either FPS that's somewhat modified by skill, or VATS (derivative)?
And SU. The shot that is picked during the pause is fired immediately at choosing and the game resumes realtime right there and then, or does the pause remain until the player chooses to disengage it? How does automatic and burst fire work with that, or is it just for "potshots"?
And SU. The shot that is picked during the pause is fired immediately at choosing and the game resumes realtime right there and then, or does the pause remain until the player chooses to disengage it? How does automatic and burst fire work with that, or is it just for "potshots"?
For the most part realtime resumes when the pause is ended (i.e. the player unpauses) and the character takes a "potshot" immediately (or as soon as a current animation has finished).
For "sniping" or shooting at specific body locations you can activate a subfunction of the targeting system and rather then being shown a whole body of your target get whatever hit locations CP2077 had implemented (and we have no solid idea what those may be so I can't be more specific) and you get to select one. The CP2020/FNFF rules have mods to hit so they'll be used to modify your hit probability just like they would in a PnP.
As to auto fire, I didn't see any indication of selective fire weapons in the demo, but if they exist you'd have to select a fire mode, and the appropriate mods from CP2020/FNFF would be applied.
I'm pretty confident it's gonna be the first option Kofe, though I wouldn't call it FPS. Having a VATs system and the inhaler based bullet time that was shown off in the demo would be somewhat redundant. They're not exactly the same thing obviously, but I don't think it's likely both would be in a game. Maybe there's some example somewhere I'm not remembering.
I have no idea what else to call it. And yeah, that is probably what it's going to be; and even if they've implied otherwise, I can't expect the demo footage to change much.
BUT, since they actually have implied the desire and intent to shuffle things around still (strongly even). i kinda feel obligated to push for things that'd work for the better (in comparison to the demo) as far as the games RPGness goes.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
As far as the plain FPS combat goes. I'm fine if it works like the original Deus Ex. I'd even ask for that. Focus aim towards certain (character based) amount of base accuracy at a certain (character based) speed and then let recoil and bullet spread and characer progression handle the rest. Apply the same kind of (character based) waivering to ironsights as is common to sniper rifles in these games.
Other than that; I'd be fine with SU's idea to certain degree.
But then...
Aside from the ridiculous curving bullets and the demo implementation in general, the smart guns have a solid idea for combat gameplay behind them.
The game already has target lock (with smart guns), the game already calculates distances (to objectives), the game already has stats for guns and skills for the player, and cyberware to boot.
It's not a long way from that to either smart-guns or specific cyberware opening up a certain combat mode.
Where:
- The player has the responsibility to maneuver normally.
- The player has the responsibility to bring the crosshair close enough of the desired target and press and hold a designated key (let's say RMB) with which the crosshair locks on to the target (and probably press Q or E or use the mousewheel to switch targets on the fly).
- The game then calculates a living range of hit chances based on:
-- Characters skill level
-- The weapons specific stats
-- The players mobility
-- The enemy's mobility
-- The enemy's distance
-- Line of sight and proximity of the enemy
-- Lighting
and applies that visually to a modified crosshair not dissimiliar to the one seen here at the camera:
- The gauge gives a range of THC based on the situation and lets the bar focus for a certain amount of seconds to reach the characters max chance before restarting or eventually disengaging (losing focus).
- The player then has to pull the trigger at as s/he sees fit (preferably at the best possible time as indicated by the gauge on crosshair, but sometimes there's no time to wait for that... it's basically a 2020 mechanic where you are allowed to spend a turn to take aim and get a bonus accuracy in the next... if you're still alive).
- The game calculates recoil throwaway modifier from the guns stats and applies it to subsequent shots (fast semi-auto; burst; full auto).
- The player might even choose different bodyparts (or other parts... like ones in that mech suit, or a in a vehicle) on the fly by moving the mouse towards them (not dissimiliar to how it is done in Kingdom Come or Crackdown) and the game might apply difficulty modifiers to them.
- Not much different from using ironsights in an FPS functionally, but mechanically more RPG and far less twitchy.
- At the end of the skillrange, the player has nearly guaranteed THC to close proximity enemies while long range ones might still miss.
Most of what's needed is already in the game. And this wouldn't even change the flow too much for the FPSers if they wanted to try it out. Relatively easily combineable with wall jumping and those timemachine drugs.
It's different. But it combines character stats to combat prowess seamlessly and without the player being able to compensate much (and thus nullifying the skills existence).
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.
I disagree with this.. While choice and concequences are important alone are not enough to define a proper rpg or games like life is strange could be considered rpg witch are not.
What i dislike about this direction is the bastardization or let's call it dumbing down about a beloved pen and paper game that is being turned in to a shooter with roleplay elements apparently since this is a game based again on a pen and paper i expected to have way more character agency "Gunplay driven by stats and skill from the character" than "twichy FPS combat" and judging by the demo in this cd projekt is falling hard because that sort of gameplay could be good for any other title but on a title based on cyberpunk 2020 completely destroys the spirt of the pen and paper.
I hope to be wrong i hope i am mislead but based on what i seen i could understand if a day pen and paper fan will say: "ah well cd projekt red turned Cyberpunk in to a shooter".
But the slowed time is part of VATs IIRC. It's not a separate system. I could be mis-remembering I haven't played Fallout in like 2 1/2 years. In fact I believe there was a Mod that replaced VATs with a bullet time system.
Where:
- The player has the responsibility to maneuver normally.
- The player has the responsibility to bring the crosshair close enough of the desired target and press and hold a designated key (let's say RMB) with which the crosshair locks on to the target (and probably press Q or E or use the mousewheel to switch targets on the fly).
- The game then calculates a living range of hit chances based on:
-- Characters skill level
-- The weapons specific stats
-- The players mobility
-- The enemy's mobility
-- The enemy's distance
-- Line of sight and proximity of the enemy
-- Lighting
It's an interesting concept. By player's mobility and enemy's mobility you don't mean statistically, but whether the player or NPC are moving correct? Lighting being involved I'm not a huge fan of but either way.
I think a large deal of this is probably incorporated into the Smart Gun design already (although obviously we can't know for sure). It was clear form the demo that some of the smart gun shots either missed or resulted in 0 damage depending on what they hit. So there's already the RNG involved there. I think that smart weapon design is there attempt to create something that would work for people who like stats to be more taken into account than player aim or twitchy-ness. So I wouldn't be surprised for smart weapons to work something like this. The character skill regarding firearms (either long or short guns) starts as the base, and then the weapon accounts for most of the additional components. Distance we see a range stat, line of sight is accounted by bullets hitting things you don't aim around & penetration stats for the weapon. I'm sure mobility of target comes into play (and perhaps mobility of the player, but I'm less confident on that). So I think a lot of this may already be incorporated into the design.
What i dislike about this direction is the ... dumbing down about a beloved pen and paper game that is being turned in to a shooter with roleplay elements apparently since this is a game based again on a pen and paper i expected to have way more character agency "Gunplay driven by stats and skill from the character" than "twichy FPS combat" and judging by the demo in this cd projekt is falling hard because that sort of gameplay could be good for any other title but on a title based on cyberpunk 2020 completely destroys the spirt of the pen and paper.
I think we'll just have to agree to disagree. I never expected gunplay combat to work like it did in 2020. Action narrative driven RPGs are what CDPR does. It has always been apparent to me that there would be a heavier focus on player input during combat than the PnP allowed. I've been saying that for years. Kofe and I have had many friendly debates about it.
I think a large deal of this is probably incorporated into the Smart Gun design already (although obviously we can't know for sure). It was clear form the demo that some of the smart gun shots either missed or resulted in 0 damage depending on what they hit. So there's already the RNG involved there. I think that smart weapon design is there attempt to create something that would work for people who like stats to be more taken into account than player aim or twitchy-ness. So I wouldn't be surprised for smart weapons to work something like this. The character skill regarding firearms (either long or short guns) starts as the base, and then the weapon accounts for most of the additional components. Distance we see a range stat, line of sight is accounted by bullets hitting things you don't aim around & penetration stats for the weapon. I'm sure mobility of target comes into play (and perhaps mobility of the player, but I'm less confident on that). So I think a lot of this may already be incorporated into the design.
Well IIRC the already confirmed that smart weapons are balanced differently. Found it -
Q: How do smart guns work specifically and how do the characters shooting skills and other possible stats and abilities affect that (if at all)? Are they just an auto-hit crutch to simplify combat, or will they have a more "RPG-like" implementation (i.e. hit chances based on a number of factors like skill, focus, range, visibility...).
Philip Weber: While we are still balancing all of this the general idea is that there will be a trade-off, so a weapon that requires aim will generally do more damage compared to a weapon that has smart aim. In one sentence I would say that we want to deliver the full RPG experience while polishing the shooting aspect so that it feels just right.
Kyle Rowley: In order to actually use smart guns you will need a specific connection to the gun via a piece of cyberware that will unlock the ability to use the targeting system that will actually multi-highlight the enemies, so when you pull the trigger the bullets track them. The player's actual skills do not affect the smart weapon technology at all, it's all based on the gun. The targeting system itself is from an eye augment so that is what unlocks the bullet tracking, but how efficient it is at tracking is based on the weapon, not the player skill.
The way the weapons work now, obviously this is all very much work in progress so anything can change, but what we have right now are pistols, shotguns, rifles - they can be either Tech or Street. A large percentage of those weapons can fit modules that can change they way they handle, those modules being Tech, Smart or Power. So I can aquire a Tech pistol but I can replace the module so it can become a Power or Smart pistol. Gameplay mechanics can change based on what modules you pick and modules will also have rarities attached to them as well.
In the demo you saw a Corporate smart rifle, while these have less modability they are generally more powerful. So these are dedicated weapons for a specific type of gameplay.
Yeah. That's what I went for. The basics are in place already. But the SG's in the demo and the explanation of them that came later with Kinleys interview, didn't make it look or sound very appealing.
They specifically said there are no character stats involved (...or, weren't at that time). That's what iffed me about it and that's what I'd want touch with this thing here.
They specifically said there are no character stats involved (...or, weren't at that time). That's what iffed me about it and that's what I'd want touch with this thing here.
What they said was "The player's actual skills do not affect the smart weapon technology at all, it's all based on the gun." I took that to mean the player themselves. Not the character. I.E. It's not about the players aim, but all about the stats generated in-engine. Which if gun skill effects damage would likely include that. If skill does not increase damage (WHICH I WOULD ACTUALLY LOVE) then it would be less likely to involve character skills either, since effects like aim sway and recoil would be largely moot for the smart weapons. I do agree it's ambiguous.
What they said was "The player's actual skills do not affect the smart weapon technology at all, it's all based on the gun." I took that to mean the player themselves. Not the character. Though I do agree it's ambiguous.
You need the cyberware to use the gun, and then the gun does the job. I don't know how else to take what Kyle said there.
It's static accuracy per weapon. And damage increments don't really do much to the picture as you can just sit behind cover and hold the trigger down even longer periods of time. There's really not much mechanical intrigue there; very little desire to get better at shooting; and ultimately, with all that lacking, the combat experience as a whole suffers.
What I mean is that there a big difference in the feel of it if between knowing that the results are based on "your character" as per you built him/her, and knowing you are holding an apparatus that works based on its own laws.
But be that as it may, if the smart guns are indeed as you explain and skill affects damage of the bullets (which isn't very Cyberpunk...); and if that's how it'll remain. That still leaves the kind of character based RPG combat in the air.
And I'd rather get rid of curving bullets and... smart guns altogether if that's how it worked.
Well, to sum it, an FPS player who will play the game will:
-Do more damages than an RPG player.
-Have more money than an RPG player.
-Have more humanity points than an RPG player.
I hope my roleplay skills will give me an edge over FPS players on other aspects of the game to compensate.
I said it before and I'll say it again: Realistic.
Sure, that was about difficulty but I'm thinking Deus Ex. Better stats better chance of survival but one shot to the head may be very lethal.
Picked stats for this poll(isn't it hinted at in the gameplay?)...though I wanted to pick more alternatives.
I'm pretty confident it's gonna be the first option Kofe, though I wouldn't call it FPS. Having a VATs system and the inhaler based bullet time that was shown off in the demo would be somewhat redundant. They're not exactly the same thing obviously, but I don't think it's likely both would be in a game. Maybe there's some example somewhere I'm not remembering.
Probably true.
Those that want a more RPG like experience can just spend a ton of character $ on inhalers and use the "hit's everything in it's sights" Smartweapons.
But one can hope.
BUT, since they actually have implied the desire and intent to shuffle things around still (strongly even). i kinda feel obligated to push for things that'd work for the better (in comparison to the demo) as far as the games RPGness goes.
Well, to sum it, an FPS player who will play the game will:
-Do more damages than an RPG player.
-Have more money than an RPG player.
-Have more humanity points than an RPG player.
I hope my roleplay skills will give me an edge over FPS players on other aspects of the game to compensate.
As it stands now CP2077 is on my "wait and see" list. After release I'll watch the gameplay people will be posting and see just how twitchy it looks and decide if it's worth buying. NOT because I expect it to be a bad game, but because I may be unable to play it.
I'd argue implementing it to a standard that has the same desired level as the rest of the game.
This is the follow up to one of the greatest games of all time. One has to be believe they want it to be a masterpiece. While anything is possible, I just don't see CDPR putting in a VAT like system that's even more simple and bare bones than Bethesda's, a system that was janky enough to begin with. Even Bethesda looked at it and seemingly thought, 'Damn, we need to spice this up! Let's have various slo-mo bits along with third person panning action shots. Let's also tie some mechanics specifically to its use and have it tied to a resource to make it enaging'.
I believe CDPR would want something truly wonderful and gobsmacking, therefore, if my guess is near the mark, it'd require more than simply coding a space bar pause with enemy select, tied to rules taken straight from the corebook.
It's not so much a 'factual' missed point or anything and I'm happy to agree to disagree
It's not that I dislike queuing, it's just that I'm VERY intentionally keeping the design and implementation of my proposed RPG mode as simple as possible.
...it's very rarely normal movement that's a problem. It's getting the cursor to the precise point on the screen and triggering a shot on a fraction of a second...
Well, not that it matters, but I'm surprised anyone who could double jump, hit a wall in the required spot and then jump off while turning the camera to their enemies would have any problem aiming. But then people's hand-eye coordination is of course going to differ widely.
On the bright side though, the demo seemed to be fairly forgiving and didn't, by my metric, include precision or split-second timing. I think the game looked fast, what with the effects and bullets flying everywhere, but it was still close to the recent DEx games. It was no Unreal if you know what I mean. The final 'feel' of the game might be even slower.
Speaking of precision, I noticed you chose option 4, Milsim. I take it that was purely for lethality? Otherwise, you must be a much better FPS'er than you're letting on
FPS gamers tend to be a very vocal minority. They claim to represent the majority of gamers but sales and actual gameplay time figures show games like Candy Crush, Farmvile, and FIFA make it very clear they're a minority.
Interesting. In sheer numbers you may well be right, especially if you're gonna include the likes of Candy Crush and Farmville. Though with all the Destiny, Halo, CoD, Overwatch, Team Fortress and CounterStrike players out there? I mean, some of those games are popular enough to have their own esports. Hmm.
Maybe it's not just about numbers though. Maybe it's about those Venn diagram, crossover tastes? Many people enjoy FPS and find it easy to pick up and play, even though they wouldn't refer to themselves as FPS'ers. As a gamer with varied tastes, I'm wary of sticking people into hard-coded groups.
Still, I don't know why they'd end up being more vocal than the RPGer's, particularly on this forum. I'm not saying you're definitely wrong though!
Maybe. However, as I mentioned above, this proposed system doesn't sound like innovation. It sounds like a bare-bones version of VATs. Do CDPR want to risk having critics writing that in their reviews on release day, after slaving away at the game for years?
The niche comment was simply to emphasise this question: How many prospective customers would be looking forward to the VATs mode compared to the ones looking forward to the combat as shown so far? I don't know the answer but if I were forced to put money on it, I'd feel safer going with the latter.
Thanks for going to the trouble of a step-by-step btw. Yeah, it seems very simple, as you said. Then again, I'm still curious about how long automation will go on when firing? The enemies in that segment all died in one hit from a shotgun. I didn't notice that before, maybe it was a poor clip choice. My bad.
In VATs you fire for as long as you have VATs time, you die or the opponent dies, and it's all quite static, as you well know.
So what about this game? What if you don't hit? How many shots will V fire? Do we queue them? Is it just fire until the enemy is dead (impossible in the air or when sliding)? What about the homing bullets which can hit multiple targets?
I hope to be wrong i hope i am mislead but based on what i seen i could understand if a day pen and paper fan will say: "ah well cd projekt red turned Cyberpunk in to a shooter".
In the end, my instincts tell me CP2077 will be as much a shooter as W3 was a hack and slash. Make of that what you will. I'm guessing it will vary greatly from person to person.
Thanks for that. I thought the stuff about modules, Tech, Power and Smart categories sounds really fun and allows player customisation, something that I hope features prominently in combat.
Yeah, it's not surprising and makes sense that they'll do less damage. You can go back to at least the early 00's I think and often see examples of it in various FPS games. I guess if they did the same damage then why would you use anything else? I do remember the smart gun in Aliens vs Predator doing massive damage but the draw back was very limited ammo.
I usually saved auto hit weapons for annoying, hard to reach enemies and ludicrously fast ones...or massive bullet sponges you had to constantly run away from
I'm in no way suggesting only pause-n-shoot, the current FPS system would function as is (and hopefully be improved), it's merely an option to play the game and an RPG rather then an FPS. I really don't understand why so many people object to the idea, I really, honestly, don't.
The only thing I can think of is they somehow feel threatened by the idea. Afraid most people will like it and less pure FPS games will be made.
I don't understand why you believe so many people object to the idea to begin with. This notion a vast swath of players object to "non-FPS" game play or multiple systems of combat doesn't seem to exist. At least not in this thread. I doubt it's a common view toward a game advertised as an RPG first and foremost anyway. It does make for a suitable strawman though .
Developing two systems, with one based almost completely on character agency and the other on player agency, and slapping done on it might meet resistance. It would not be because the system based on character agency exists. It would be because the system based on player agency disregards the character attributes completely. If this isn't the intent then all is well.
I'd argue implementing it to a standard that has the same desired level as the rest of the game.
This is the follow up to one of the greatest games of all time. One has to be believe they want it to be a masterpiece. While anything is possible, I just don't see CDPR putting in a VAT like system that's even more simple and bare bones than Bethesda's, a system that was janky enough to begin with. Even Bethesda looked at it and seemingly thought, 'Damn, we need to spice this up! Let's have various slo-mo bits along with third person panning action shots. Let's also tie some mechanics specifically to its use and have it tied to a resource to make it enaging'.
I believe CDPR would want something truly wonderful and gobsmacking, therefore, if my guess is near the mark, it'd require more than simply coding a space bar pause with enemy select, tied to rules taken straight from the corebook.
Not really.
Again in the interests of keeping it simple there really is little more then coding a "pause" key and implementing CP2020/FNFF behind the scenes. They're not building a new game from scratch, just implementing a feature, the same as they did with inventory management, buying/selling, etc.
Well, not that it matters, but I'm surprised anyone who could double jump, hit a wall in the required spot and then jump off while turning the camera to their enemies would have any problem aiming. But then people's hand-eye coordination is of course going to differ widely.
On the bright side though, the demo seemed to be fairly forgiving and didn't, by my metric, include precision or split-second timing. I think the game looked fast, what with the effects and bullets flying everywhere, but it was still close to the recent DEx games. It was no Unreal if you know what I mean. The final 'feel' of the game might be even slower.
Speaking of precision, I noticed you chose option 4, Milsim. I take it that was purely for lethality? Otherwise, you must be a much better FPS'er than you're letting on
I don't do platformers, racing, flight sim, or any other game that requires precision and timing. And as much as I'd absolutely LOVE to play ArmA 3 I've never even tried due to the FPS elements.
Maybe it's not just about numbers though. Maybe it's about those Venn diagram, crossover tastes? Many people enjoy FPS and find it easy to pick up and play, even though they wouldn't refer to themselves as FPS'ers. As a gamer with varied tastes, I'm wary of sticking people into hard-coded groups.
Still, I don't know why they'd end up being more vocal than the RPGer's, particularly on this forum. I'm not saying you're definitely wrong though!
As with anything some people have varied tastes, some prefer something they're familiar with over anything new. And I think that's really the "problem". These days most people grew up with Mario and other action/precision games and really don't know anything else. I grew up with board games and later PnP RPGs (I was in my 20's when D&D was first released). So I prefer a slower paced game where you have time to make decisions over one that tests my reaction times.
Maybe. However, as I mentioned above, this proposed system doesn't sound like innovation. It sounds like a bare-bones version of VATs. Do CDPR want to risk having critics writing that in their reviews on release day, after slaving away at the game for years?
It's also an open world so it will be compared to Skyrim, it has modern tech so it will be compared to GTA, it has FPS so it'll be compared to CoD, ... so what if it's compared to VATS?
The niche comment was simply to emphasise this question: How many prospective customers would be looking forward to the VATs mode compared to the ones looking forward to the combat as shown so far? I don't know the answer but if I were forced to put money on it, I'd feel safer going with the latter.
I don't understand why you believe so many people object to the idea to begin with. This notion a vast swath of players object to "non-FPS" game play or multiple systems of combat doesn't seem to exist. At least not in this thread. I doubt it's a common view toward a game advertised as an RPG first and foremost anyway. It does make for a suitable strawman though .
Developing two systems, with one based almost completely on character agency and the other on player agency, and slapping done on it might meet resistance. It would not be because the system based on character agency exists. It would be because the system based on player agency disregards the character attributes completely. If this isn't the intent then all is well.
Why should it?
I can could certainly see, and agree with, outrage if the FPS system was replaced by what I suggest. But why does it's mere inclusion as an option effect the FPS fan base in the least?
It's NOT a PvP game, no one is going to get so mythical advantage over you.
. It is a good example of what I'd like to avoid though. It appears too much like being an observer. You're not really in the combat so much as watching it occur. Pause game, pick target, rinse/repeat. All of the substance comes into play before you reach the encounter via the character development. It's one thing to do this from isometric or 3rd person perspective when you're in control of multiple characters, with different strengths and weaknesses. It's another when you control a single character from first person perspective. It ends up feeling clumsy and non-interactive.
