Weekly Poll 3/25/19 - How To Win Without Murder

[Sardukhar]

Well after last week was so definitively in favour of ways to win that didn't involve mass homicide, I thought we'd move onto part deux, as they say in the land of the franc.

How would you prefer to bypass obstacles without killing?

5 choices, because this covers a variety of options.


Rest of the weekly polls here: https://forums.cdprojektred.com/index.php?threads/collected-weekly-polls-thread.10984601/

 

[Rawls]

2, 4, 5 ... mostly 5, but I know I will want to try out 2 and 4 some.

Also 8 & 9. I'm fine with needing to fight sometimes. Some creative strategies should be rewarded.

 

[Mawnark]

6 is a big deal for me. Edit: should be mixed with 5. 2 4 8 & 9 add replayability and variety.

 

[Suhiira]

2, 4, 5, 8.
Mostly 5, I want to see options based on the situation. Sometimes you can talk, sometimes you can hack, sometimes you have to fight. One size fits all solutions are NEVER a good idea.

 

[CyberBobber]

Social sounds fun to me. I keep saying this in every thread but Fashion/Style is fun too, so stats? Higher your Fashion score bigger your chances to avoid stuff.

 

[Draconifors]

5, 6, 8, and 9.

I'm aware that 5 and 6 sort of conflict, so here's my reasoning:
6 is an obvious choice for me, because it's role-playing. The game'll be an RPG. Role-playing and RPGs go well together. (Plus, I still want to have fun.)
5 is also an obvious choice, because I know I don't always make choices based on what my character would do. Logic and rational thinking often prevail over staying "in character".

I picked the "Not worried about it" option in last week's poll, and I really don't mind if some things cannot be accomplished without combat. Hence 8.

9 would be great, as long as it wouldn't be a requirement every time. Often, sure, but not always.

 

[Tree_Fox]

Honestly I feel like non lethal weapons are a cop-out. You get to do all the badass action sequences without the consequences of actually killing someone. Pass on that.

Talking should be very situational. No matter how charismatic you are, you're not going to talk your way past a guard thats watching a secure building... Unless you got something that "proves" you belong there.

I love stealth in games like these. Give us alternate paths that can let us get in and out without ever being seen. But dont make painfully obvious gaps in security. Like an unguarded vent outside the building that gets you into an unguarded area. Looking at you, Deus Ex.

Hacking would be a nice feature as well. The trade-off is if you fail, security is going to be inside your personal space really quickly and that the minigame whatever it is wont give you that action hero feel.

 

[kofeiiniturpa]

6 and 9.

I don’t think it should ever be a given that you ”know” you have this or that amount of options.

The ways one is able to handle a situations should be dependant on character build, past choices and figuring out there is a variety of ways to begin with. I.e. you might have done something in the past that forefits passage through peaceful means (or passage at all... the mission you’re on might not be for your chosen character to begin with), or your character simply lacks the aptitude at the moment.

Different possibilities could of course be listed like:
- speaking
— persuade
— intimidate
— bargain
— deceive
— seduce
- bypassing
— alternative routes
—- sneaking
—- hacking
—- lockpicking
—- awareness checks on environment
...and so on. Mix and match, include remote locations for hacking and driving groups against each other...

But it shouldn’t be explicitly told to the player that you have options 1, 2 and 3..., and even less that you always have options 1, 2 and 3. It’s the players responsibility to discover those options if his character and wits are up to it.

I think that a more interesting question than ”ways to win without murder” would be ”ways to lose without dying”, because winning or reloading from the grave shouldn’t be the default condintions of every mission (like they tend to be). Failure and its consequences should very much be an element the player has to consider.

 

[Mevik1023]

One of those most satisfying feelings in gaming is taking an "Oh yeah, well what if I try this," approach to a quest and realizing the game devs thought of that too/have a plan for it. If unique solutions produce unique results that affect the character and world, the game gains an infinite replay value. Players may find themselves reloading manual saves just to get every narrative inch out of a quest.

 

[Rawls]

I think that a more interesting question than ”ways to win without murder” would be ”ways to lose without dying”, because winning or reloading from the grave shouldn’t be the default condintions of every mission (like they tend to be). Failure and its consequences should very much be an element the player has to consider.

Do quests have fail states?

PW: Yes, you can fail quests. What we don't have however is a game over state, the only game over that you will get is when you die. So when you fail a quest then it's now part of the story, you have to deal with the consequences.

https://forums.cdprojektred.com/ind...om-2018-edition.10979804/page-2#post-11096951 I will grant you that this is not a very specific answer, but it seems they are at least thinking about the "only options are victory and death" game design issues.

 

[kofeiiniturpa]

https://forums.cdprojektred.com/ind...om-2018-edition.10979804/page-2#post-11096951 I will grant you that this is not a very specific answer, but it seems they are at least thinking about the "only options are victory and death" game design issues.

It's a good starting point at least. But yeah, not very specific.

It'd be actually interesting to think about what it means to lose beyond "a reward" being forfeit.

Does the game keep track of your failures? What would failing a lot mean? What are the longer term consequences for failing a specific mission (i.e. failing an assassination mission, failing a data retrieval mission)? What would the different failstates be? Not being in time, doing something wrong, killing/targeting the wrong person, misinterpreting the message, delivering a wrong message....? Stuff like that.

I hope it holds more weight than "Sorry pal, no prize. Here's your next assgnment".

 

[KakitaTatsumaru]

2 cause a full social build doesn't have to be any less relevant than a murder hobo.

 

[EngryEngineer]

6 and 9.

I don’t think it should ever be a given that you ”know” you have this or that amount of options.

The ways one is able to handle a situations should be dependant on character build, past choices and figuring out there is a variety of ways to begin with. I.e. you might have done something in the past that forefits passage through peaceful means (or passage at all... the mission you’re on might not be for your chosen character to begin with), or your character simply lacks the aptitude at the moment.

Different possibilities could of course be listed like:
- speaking
— persuade
— intimidate
— bargain
— deceive
— seduce
- bypassing
— alternative routes
—- sneaking
—- hacking
—- lockpicking
—- awareness checks on environment
...and so on. Mix and match, include remote locations for hacking and driving groups against each other...

But it shouldn’t be explicitly told to the player that you have options 1, 2 and 3..., and even less that you always have options 1, 2 and 3. It’s the players responsibility to discover those options if his character and wits are up to it.

I think that a more interesting question than ”ways to win without murder” would be ”ways to lose without dying”, because winning or reloading from the grave shouldn’t be the default condintions of every mission (like they tend to be). Failure and its consequences should very much be an element the player has to consider.

nice.

 

[Snowflakez]

2, 3, 7, 9.

I'm not against combat, but I didn't select the first option because obviously combat will be a viable option, so might as well focus on the other stuff.

 

[Jarred_Blaauw]

I like the idea of not having to kill anyone and Watch dogs 2 did it great. You could do a whole mission from outside the mission area by just using drones and hacking your way in.

 

[Snowflakez]

This was just brought up on the subreddit, and the main consensus (as was to be expected) is essentially "What kind of idiot doesn't want to kill people in a Cyberpunk game? Go back to My Little Pony!"

...Which, while funny and great for upvotes, doesn't actually stimulate any useful discussion.

To that end, I wanted to point out that non-lethal runs need not be easy, and they don't even need to be "officially" supported. By "officially," they don't need to be one of the recognized paths through a quest at all times (although it'd sure be nice for it to be an option frequently).

Kingdom Come: Deliverance has an achievemnt called "Merciful," which you only earn after beating the main campaign without killing a single person. This is NOT easy, and often times you have to use possibly unintended workarounds to accomplish this goal.

To name a few of the unique aspects of this sort of run:

• There are no non-lethal weapons. You have non-lethal knockout stealth takedowns (which are not always reliable for a number of reasons, primarily enemy armor negating some of your stealth takedown bonus), and your fists. That's it.
• Tying into the last point, you rely on hand-to-hand for 90% of your encounters. This is extremely challenging. You have to dodge, fatigue your opponent, and go for jabs to the head to eventually KO him (or her). No shields, swords, polearms, or ideally even heavy armor (makes it harder to dodge).
• Often, quest paths will force you to kill - obviously, being that we're going for a no-kill run, that's not an option. So, we will knockout the target in question, carry them all the way to a nearby village/fort, and let the NPCs do the work. This can be frustrating due to some AI issues in the game, but as long as you don't do the killing, your hands stay clean and you are on your way to the achievement.

That is what I want when I ask for a no-kill run. POSSIBLE, but very, very difficult and requires some thought/experimentation to accomplish. This may mean using your fists, drones, stun guns, tasers, and other gadgets to clear rooms or kill enemies without getting directly involved (Yes, I'm aware we love to have discussions about how fists are not non-lethal).

These sort of runs are bloody fun, and as somebody who tends to spend upwards of a thousand hours in games like this, I want to be given enough tools to try crazy stuff like this and possibly prevail. Remember Felix the Pacifist Cat in Skyrim? The player who used Illusion magic to turn his enemies against eachother or fight for him? Conjuration to get demons/familiars to do his dirty work?

I'm well aware that this is outside the realm of realism for some players. That's fine. Kingdom Come: Deliverance is, in almost all respects, a realism-focused game - arguably moreso than Cyberpunk 2077, from what we've seen so far (there are no magic healing inhalers). That's why this is on the outskirts of what is supported/possible.

The developers can accomplish this sort of thing fairly easy, by leaving quest flags on the open-ended side (no scenarios where the player themselves are forced to actually carry out "the act," execution-style).