I totally agree with everything else (as you can imagine), but there's a simple and effective solution for this: difficulty levels.
I don't mind some enemies being a bit tanky because I expect more difficult enemies to have some sort of ballistic protection. I'd just like to see that protection reflected by their appearance.
Guys wearing leather overcoats shouldn't be eating as many bullets as a Trauma Team guy in full riot armor.
I am all for enemy guns packing a punch on increased difficulty or on harder missions further on in the game. Help players to appreciate the value hard cover and superior positioning.
Few things annoy me more than watching gameplay where players just break cover and start shooting while the enemy is still firing. This happens because players do not respect bullet damage. If they did, they'd wait for breaks in enemy gunfire before moving and shooting.
Last edited:
Many quests, according to the narrative are urgent, require you to act now and yet, there'll be no punishment if you do a ton of side-quests before getting to the said quest. I'd say that'll add some dynamic to the world. Make it... somewhat alive;
I beg you, don't add new levels of loot in DLCs (if there will be any). Makes the whole grind pointless (Borderlands 2, 3 - best example of that);
Don't make a giant gap between levels of enemies. If the player is 1-3 levels lower than an enemy, make it hard, but not unbeatable. S'pouse this can be applied to items too. Can't help but feel broken when I gotta sell my trusty sidearm (sword, whatever) cos it's useless now. Giving a chance to level up your favourite item at a considerable price would be nice;
The enemy is 5 levels higher so we'll fiddle with some health/damage values and that'd be enough. Why not differentiate enemies' fighting patterns on higher levels. Such as usage of nades, suppressive firing, new moves, shielding, etc.
"You can't do it now". "BUT I WANNA CAST AXII DURING THE FIST FIGHT". Don't restrict some unwanted actions during certain conditions. Casted Axii during the fistfight? Get kicked out of fistfights and be branded as a "cheater". Just make it clear to players that villagers don't appreciate using witchery stuff in a fair fight.
I beg you, don't add new levels of loot in DLCs (if there will be any). Makes the whole grind pointless (Borderlands 2, 3 - best example of that);
Don't make a giant gap between levels of enemies. If the player is 1-3 levels lower than an enemy, make it hard, but not unbeatable. S'pouse this can be applied to items too. Can't help but feel broken when I gotta sell my trusty sidearm (sword, whatever) cos it's useless now. Giving a chance to level up your favourite item at a considerable price would be nice;
The enemy is 5 levels higher so we'll fiddle with some health/damage values and that'd be enough. Why not differentiate enemies' fighting patterns on higher levels. Such as usage of nades, suppressive firing, new moves, shielding, etc.
"You can't do it now". "BUT I WANNA CAST AXII DURING THE FIST FIGHT". Don't restrict some unwanted actions during certain conditions. Casted Axii during the fistfight? Get kicked out of fistfights and be branded as a "cheater". Just make it clear to players that villagers don't appreciate using witchery stuff in a fair fight.
Last edited:
Unrealistic NPC reaction to the player's character. If an NPC is a heavily armed full conversion borg corporate security with back up to boot, then they should be expected to be as big of a jerk as they like, no problem. However, if the NPC in question is some unarmed poor slob of a citizen that looks like a wet kitten could trash them and they just got through witnessing you slaughter a booster gang in all your bloody glory, there's no way in hell they should be mouthing off to you. Also, an NPC should not in one breath be a snarky smart ass to you then in the next expect you to go out of your way to help them.
I just don't want a lot of crafting in the game. It's silly how many games allow you to craft ten potions in the middle of a fight and then just spam-heal over and over again. It's too gamy and it breaks immersion. When a game relies heavily on crafting mechanics I get bored.
I wish you could only carry as many items in your inventory as is realistic for a human being to manage. You cannot walk around with two bazookas, five machine guns, twelve revolvers and thirty sets of ballistic armor, which you can then swap and replace whenever you need them.
Please don't do the game over screen when you die. It's so anachronistic and unnecessary. We all know the game is over when we die or lose, and we don't need that message plastered all over the screen every time it happens. I wish there was an intelligent way of making it feel less obtrusive, just as if it never really happened in the first place.
I basically hope that anything that can make the game feel more immersive should be implemented. They've been talking about how they want the player to be really immersed in this world, so I hope that extends to things like death, crafting and inventory management as well.
I wish you could only carry as many items in your inventory as is realistic for a human being to manage. You cannot walk around with two bazookas, five machine guns, twelve revolvers and thirty sets of ballistic armor, which you can then swap and replace whenever you need them.
Please don't do the game over screen when you die. It's so anachronistic and unnecessary. We all know the game is over when we die or lose, and we don't need that message plastered all over the screen every time it happens. I wish there was an intelligent way of making it feel less obtrusive, just as if it never really happened in the first place.
I basically hope that anything that can make the game feel more immersive should be implemented. They've been talking about how they want the player to be really immersed in this world, so I hope that extends to things like death, crafting and inventory management as well.
Several trends, in fact. Leaving rpg system unchecked leading to numbers bloat, distilling gameplay loop to basic things to help developers create more quests and overbloat of content that is presented to the player straight into his/her face with no substance like stat checks or a unique encounter. All of this coming together in one game is what I like to call - gameplay "proletarianization". You just stop playing and start "working" in the game to see new story pieces. Ubisoft in recent titles are extremely obvious leader in this trend, just look at Assassin's Creed: Oddysey and Far Cry 5/New Dawn. Red Dead Redemption is at blame too in fact, because its mission structure hasn't changed since GTA 3, only distilled to be obvious with spamming "mission failure" when the player gets too initiative, grind is to your face and question marks speak for themselves. Why did I bother to remember RDR2s sins? CDPR wants to be the next Rockstar, that is. Biggest irony? They all were inspired by Witcher 3.
Last edited:
Hmm! So all of them give us Kitsch - Style over Substance, while they think the end result is Neokitsch - Style and Substance.
Biggest difference is - CDPR just ran out of time and needed to close the gaps between interesting quest stuff and add at least a few more substance to the sandbox environment. The main game was still long because of the main and side quests, and no one would stop you from going full throttle into main story. Nu-Ubi & nu-R* made it a feature - long pauses between story segments make their games look bigger than they really are (and should) on one side and creating a feeling that you're playing some twisted kind of single player MMO game on the other. This naturally easiens homogenization of gameplay with microtransactions.
In fact, Assassin's Greed: Odyssey is a quintessential 'How Not to design and implement a video game' with big chunk of it filled with 'How Not to design around open world', a perfect storm and solidified in one product example of "Hey CDPR, look. Don't do THIS!". I'd write a mini-essay on this game but that would be an off-topic.
Last edited:
I really had zero problems with RDR2 and the narrative, both classic and emergent, had nothing less than TW3's imho. I actually prefer RDR2's but I don't like to come l compare different genres. I'm also playing it now for the third time and it has more variety in gameplay situations than TW3.
Origins and Odyssey are single player fantasy MMO, nothing more nothing less and I hate them.
Origins and Odyssey are single player fantasy MMO, nothing more nothing less and I hate them.
RDR2 would be more immersive if it was actually designed to be emergent both inside and outside story or side missions, not just filled with 'immersive this', 'immersive that' mods for Skyrim in open world. Or at least make other camp residents do something! Anything! But what's true is true, it is more varied than TW3, RDR2 - a game that was in development for 5-8 years by a several huge studios, no wonder.
But youtube already explored R*'s game design kinks.
Last edited:
I'm absolutely fine with RDR2's cinematic design for quests. I don't need all games to have an emergent gameplay or the necessity for choices. What RDR2 does it's done at the state of the art. If it was advertised as an immersive sim, than yes, I would've complained as well. When I bought it I expected the same experience I got from all recent Rockstar games and I was not disappoint, very surprised by it's quality actually.
Imho complaining about RDR2 is like buying Titanfall 2 and say "this game sucks, all you do is shooting"
Imho complaining about RDR2 is like buying Titanfall 2 and say "this game sucks, all you do is shooting"
It's not a good role model for an game like Cyberpunk 2077, that's all.
No, it's legitimate criticism when it comes to trends that should be avoided in a game like Cyberpunk 2077.
Then yes, cp77, as RPG, should stay far from a strictly scripted cinematic experience if not for very short bits here and there (1% of the game), just to add a little variety and "wow moments".
I think cinematic design is generally more used, so.... not ”all games” are like that in the first place, and some really should’ve been.
I agree, we need more games with emergent gameplay, now more than ever that Arkane has dropped the immersive sim genre for pvp gaas multiplayer.I think cinematic design is generally more used, so.... not ”all games” are like that in the first place, and some really should’ve been.
I was just saying that I can't see it as a flaw for RDR2, first because it was meant to be a linear cinematic experience in regards of main and side quests (but it is indeed emergent when it comes to free roaming), second because it's so damn good that you can't really complain of how it does what it does.