What is your biggest fear regarding CP2077

[Osidlus]

It’s more about the mix of those two, but if it’s a roleplaying ”game”, instead of simply ”roleplaying” (which can ne done anywhere, any time, with or without a game), the use and presentation of stats absolutely matter. A lot. Because they are the ones that make the difference between characters models like Andre the Giant and Stephen Hawking, where the lack of them would simply leave those two character types mechanically and physically identical.

Pretty good eye kofeiiniturpa. Avalon Hill's very core definition of a game was SIMULATION. Imagine a game where success is always only up to GM opinion... how would it feel? I guess the need for objective evaluation engine (ruleset) is obvious. And for more complex modeling it will go to stats, skills etc.

 

[Suhiira]

This is a very convoluted, very specific definition in which you describe not what an RPG <clip>

The key function that defines an RPG is character agency, if your game has the player doing the shooting it's not an RPG. Everything else is game mechanics.
The character stats/skills determine outcomes, not the players.

How would games like Skyrim or KD: Deliverance fit into that definition? Or are you saying they're not part of the loving RPG family?

Never played KD: Deliverance but Skyrim is a first/third person looter-shooter/slasher at it's core.

I doubt there’s anyone out there trying to pull one over RPG or “hardcore” RPG types.

If you mean CDPR, I agree.

NONE of the Witcher games were truly RPGs, no real reason to expect CP2077 to be one. But many of us were hoping it would be. No reason it has to follow in the Witchers footsteps.

 

[hevymac]

Jesus people, do any of you know what role playing means?

Simple:
To play a specific role, either within a team, Society or an organization, and to interact with other players or actors in that world based on your *role* in that world.
For example:
•Sniper
•Toilet cleaning technician
•Mathematics teacher
•Businessman on holiday
•忍者 ninja
•Army General
•Mechanic
•Engineer

It can also branch out from the original role:
•A modern sniper Ninja doing sneaking, reconnaissance, sniping silently

•a mechanical engineer chemist, modifying and or making new weapons, next vehicles. creating and or making potions, in this world it would be chems to aid him and his team in kicking ass.

•a conversationalist team leader, being very convincing, authoritative and inspiring confidence in others and his team and his choices. Talking people down from being crazy, being able to bribe the people who he can't talk down.


These are roles that you play.
That's what role playing is.

If you've ever taught anything professionally you know what role playing is.

If you ever been in the military you know what role playing is

If you ever been involved in covert intelligence you know what role playing is.

If you know how it's used by most English speakers, you know what it means.
Choosing a specific role and then specializing further as you continue playing the role.

 

[Sild]

The key function that defines an RPG is character agency, if your game has the player doing the shooting it's not an RPG. Everything else is game mechanics.The character stats/skills determine outcomes, not the players.

Yea, i got it the first time, it's not a tabletop-roleplaying game or their video game counterparts. We're long since past that. There are games that do both and combine them in a subtle and interesting fashion. With plenty of character AND player agency.

 

[kofeiiniturpa]

Just for a general comment.... There is plenty of room for modern games to utilize more "traditional" (if you will) and impactful - and in this particular case, closer to the source material - systemic relations to the gameplay mechanics. I've been trying to push this kind of thinking for years.

The currently trendy appoach to stats** is the sort of simpleton design that doesn't really add anything to a game beyond games where grinding mobs for XP is the chief catch and purpose. It's like an excuse to bypass a bit more work to actually make things mechanically (and systemically) a bit more complex and involving, because it is assumed the core consumer can not handle it (and some probably won't...but that's true for every kind of design).

There is - for example - nothing inherently wrong with the core ideas behind the shooting mechanics in Deus Ex (the original) or Alpha protocol, where low skill means your pinpoint shots require more time and determination to be pulled off. Or additional features that utilize even more traditional means of character agency (something akin to VATS before Fallout 4, but not copypaste of it).

**
(where higher skill means +x% damage for guns, which is then helped with timealtering superpowers so the player can freely pull a few of those precious headshots that deliver the most damage. And skillchecks being the sort of gates where if you reach level X skill means you can and will now pick level X locks open or hack level X terminals, but not level Y, that requires 1 point more)

 

[Suhiira]

With plenty of character AND player agency.

My, apparently mistaken, impression was, we were discussing what defines an RPG as an RPG. I've been attempting to provide a fairly clear and concise definition. Only if everyone involved can agree on the terms involved can there be any worthwhile discussion of a topic.

 

[Mybrokenenglish]

No, thanks.

If it's turn-based gameplay, maybe (it's not realistic anyway), but if it's an action gameplay with player's agency, nope.

A game can add recoil or hands oscillation to mimic character's bad aiming, but when I see bullshit like percentages I don't even want to touch the game at all. I'm not fine with a RNG deciding for me.

 

[kofeiiniturpa]

What I've found, is that using that picture and going "omgawfulunrealistic" is very often a result of a fundamental lack of understanding what the situation in that kind of TB situation represents. And that's not a jab at people's intelligence, just a showcase of lack of experience and/or knowledge of those kinds of games.

I.e. what's going on there is not the alien standing still and the trooper pressing the gun at his forehead with only about half the chance to hit. What it represents, however abstractly, is a specific, very very small fraction in time where the adversaries are only momentarily in that postiion. And if it was real time, the situation would continue in the alien attacking and the player not even noticing that that still was ever there. The game gives the %-chance based on the event that is taking place (the troopers skill with a gun against the aliens movement at that point -- it can cover reaction times, accuracy, tactical movement skills and speeds, if those stats are present).

And TB combat can be infinitely more "realistic" than realtime, because it can take into account every little thing from hurting a toe, to wind blowing to the combatants eye, to stumbling slightly to a small rock on the ground, and make it affect the outcomes in a very precise manner based on the combatants skill, and so that the player notices it. That can not happen in realtime combat where the combatants movement is obscured by the limits of the method of controlling him (mouse&KB or controller), and the limits of the players preception in relation to the screen and speed of the situation, that little details like the ones mentioned inevitably drown in the hubris of the action, and so they are left out and the combat is simplified to work with those limits.

All that said, CP won't turnbased. I would hope there'd be a mode (the implied "tactical mode") that emulates it somehow, but that's all there is, a vague hope.

But even with action-heavy realtime FPP combat, there are numerous methods of doing it with "stats" and character agency in mind without sacrificing much of the "action".

 

[Mybrokenenglish]

yeah, but as I said, it's fine in a turn-based combat system. I disagree of such a system being realstic for the simple reason that every character waits for its turn instaed of moving all at the same time and I honestly don't think that's much to argue about that. That's absolutely not a problem, since you accept the game core being turn based and all those percentages are needed to mimic all things that in a turn based game are absent (first of which, characters' real-time movements).

It's a problem (for me) when a game modifies the player's abilities according to a RNG in a real-time game. That's something I can't accept. TW3 had RNG only for critical hits (that can be fine since it was a melee only combat system) and I'm pretty sure CP will do the same. I would remove the concept of critical hits at all in an FPS and change it with proper hit boxes, but if the game will use the same level system as TW3, then it's absolutely useless and they can go for the usual looter shooter/MMO approach. No skills required, as long as your level matches the enemies' level is fine, if not, go back and loot a couple of epic shotgun and legendary jacket and you'll be fine.

 

[kofeiiniturpa]

I disagree of such a system being realstic for the simple reason that every character waits for its turn instaed of moving all at the same time and I honestly don't think that's much to argue about that.

But that's not how one is supposed to look at it. The sequences in TB combat are an abstraction of realtime events. Nobody "waits for their turn", the movements are simply divided into individual sequences of time. You can get a rough idea of how a TB combat scenario would look like in real time, what it is approximately supposed to represent, if you looked at combat in... say, Baldur's Gate.

There is something a bit off in the system if it actually does modify "player" skill with percentages, where you have to aim for yourself first and then rely on the characters aim. Like Morrowind. I don't mind it, I even prefer it, but I can well see how it can be...off. But in this case, too, the player's job is basically to give the character a direction to attack, not so much attack himself.

The way out of the awkwardness of that kind of double aim (one way) would be to let the player physically choose a target for the character. Target-locks, for example, have existed a long time. And while they do mitigate the players own control a bit, they don't really distract from the action and if coupled with the charactersystems appropriately, they also reflect the characters aptitude on a higher and likely in a less distracting level than the curving bullets they player has aimed himself (and then wonders why he didn't hit).

Personally, if the combat in the game is going to be as presented in the demo (full on, no apologies FPS), I'm going to have to seriously consider whether the game is really worth its weight in euros. I'm not saying that as a threat like some others when they see a feature that doesn't appeal to them, but that's just how things will work.

And that's just combat. There are also the other, out of combat, skillchecks and character agency to consider.

 

[Sild]

But that's not how one is supposed to look at it. The sequences in TB combat are an abstraction of realtime events. Nobody "waits for their turn", the movements are simply divided into individual sequences of time. You can get a rough idea of how a TB combat scenario would look like in real time, what it is approximately supposed to represent, if you looked at combat in... say, Baldur's Gate.

Personally, if the combat in the game is going to be as presented in the demo (full on, no apologies FPS), I'm going to have to seriously consider whether the game is really worth its weight in euros. I'm not saying that as a threat like some others when they see a feature that doesn't appeal to them, but that's just how things will work.

One can look at the action combat the same way though, as an abstraction of turn based events if what you're claiming is true. Which would enforce the idea that player agency isn't a thing to disregard when thinking about RPG's since making the combat mechanics factor things like alterable character driven stats such as chance to hit (weapon sway or recoil compensation in real-time) independent of the weapon and ammunition caliber used will disqualify a combat system as pure FPS and delve into RPG territory nestling itself into a already established genre of Action RPG's at least as far as combat is concerned. The amount of influence stats have outside of combat is of course yet to revealed.

 

[Mybrokenenglish]

But that's not how one is supposed to look at it. The sequences in TB combat are an abstraction of realtime events. Nobody "waits for their turn", the movements are simply divided into individual sequences of time. You can get a rough idea of how a TB combat scenario would look like in real time, what it is approximately supposed to represent, if you looked at combat in... say, Baldur's Gate.

There is something a bit off in the system if it actually does modify "player" skill with percentages, where you have to aim for yourself first and then rely on the characters aim. Like Morrowind. I don't mind it, I even prefer it, but I can well see how it can be...off. But in this case, too, the player's job is basically to give the character a direction to attack, not so much attack himself.

The way out of the awkwardness of that kind of double aim (one way) would be to let the player physically choose a target for the character. Target-locks, for example, have existed a long time. And while they do mitigate the players own control a bit, they don't really distract from the action and if coupled with the charactersystems appropriately, they also reflect the characters aptitude on a higher and likely in a less distracting level than the curving bullets they player has aimed himself (and then wonders why he didn't hit).

Personally, if the combat in the game is going to be as presented in the demo (full on, no apologies FPS), I'm going to have to seriously consider whether the game is really worth its weight in euros. I'm not saying that as a threat like some others when they see a feature that doesn't appeal to them, but that's just how things will work.

And that's just combat. There are also the other, out of combat, skillchecks and character agency to consider.

All thing I don't like. Given the FPP and their claim for immersion, I want to role-play V, I don't want to feel like a master of puppets saying "V go there, V shoot at that guy". I want to be V doing those things.

Give me an ismoetric perspective, strategic, turn-based game and I'm fine with commanding my puppets. I had no probelms with divinity original sin, but if the game director wants to give me full control in an action combat system, then I don't want an RNG to decide my fate. I want stats which describe my abilities (I can lift heavy objects with 10/10 strenght, I can hack computers with 10/10 intelligence) but I want to do those things in a FPP game. I don't want a game to roll dice for me, I don't want to look at all those numbers just to decide if I can defeat an enemy or not, if I have chances to unlock a door or not. If I hit someone in the head, I don't want to cross my fingers and hope the RNG is good with me, or see the enemy unhurt only because he's 5 levels higher than me. I hit that guy, I was good, the guy is dead. He has an helmet or skin weave, fine, he's still alive, but the next bullet will do the job.

 

[kofeiiniturpa]

One can look at the action combat the same way though, as an abstraction of turn based events if what you're claiming is true. Which would enforce the idea that player agency isn't a thing to disregard when thinking about RPG's since making the combat mechanics factor things like alterable character driven stats such as chance to hit (weapon sway or recoil compensation in real-time) independent of the weapon and ammunition caliber used will disqualify a combat system as pure FPS and delve into RPG territory nestling itself into a already established genre of Action RPG's at least as far as combat is concerned. The amount of influence stats have outside of combat is of course yet to revealed.

You could, I suppose. Sure. But why would you if the reverse engineering there would only bring it back to its origin (realtime action combat is something whose workings are already known), when the real nut to crack would be to see how that reverse engineering would bring it somewhere close to (but not precisely) halfway through with a clear intent on one way or another (here, preferably stat drivenness), but also without too much sacrifices on either side.

If I misinterpreted you, it's because that sentece is so long I did have some troubles deciphering it with my non-english brain.

...

I'm quite certain you'll be a happy camper when the game comes out.

Not so sure about myself. That's why I'm bringing these things up.

 

[Mybrokenenglish]

I'm quite certain you'll be a happy camper when the game comes out.

Not so sure about myself. That's why I'm bringing these thin

Not sure about that. The demo looked like a FPP TW3, namely a looter shooter. That is the game genre I hate the most. It's all about matching enemies' level and looting. It showed good things (dialogues and stars) but the core was not different from destiny, the division and anthem or the last far cry.

You won't like the game for sure though.

 

[kofeiiniturpa]

the core was not different from destiny, the division and anthem or the last far cry.

It really wasn't. Which is a damn shame.

You won't like the game for sure though.

That's a very possible outcome, but I'm still holding on to the claim after the demo, that the final game will in all likelyhood be very different, that everything's still on the table (skill<->weapon mechanics included).

I've been very critical and probably don't really invite much consideration with the style I post in, but I've tried to keep my nagging mostly solution centered. And there are plenty of fine compromises to consider in place of (or by the side of) what was presented in E3 and afterwards both, visually and in words.

 

[KakitaTatsumaru]

First, hello again everyone:

While I don't quite have as much time as I wants (cause I remember I still owe some peoples here one big post), I'm at least back a little.

First to stay on topic, I'll say that the worst fear would be to be unable to care about my character. It has already happened to me in video games and it totally sucks when you are unable to feel any link to your character because it turns an RPG to a random video game.

Then the reason why I came: Do we now know if we'll be able to affect the results of social interractions with our characters inner's stat?
Do we know more about stats in general and how they affect the game?
Do we know more about character personalisation?

 

[Mobster100]

Think mine is that the game is to much action with little RPG, where the game is falsely advertised as choice matters to how your story will evolve as it is done in so many games these days. But when it comes down to it, it matters next to nothing what you choose. I hope CDPR with Cyberpunk have some new and interesting ideas of how to do RPGs, sort of like what I think Mass effect did in terms of rich character and storytelling. That they take what they learned from the Witcher 3 and expand and improve on it.

 

[Mebrilia]

RPG discussion at time i think many just forget one of the core problem with cyberpunk 2077 and is that in gameplay is very distant from the source material not only in the system chosen but even in the spirit while in visual the game reflects very much the pen and paper game it ends there.

That is the core problem for me that in order to get a broader audience the fan of the pen and paper got put aside. We know a bit of the game now and the fact that core questions has not be answered yet: "Question about exotics, having a pair ot cyber arm covered in chrome and the lack of information in how the system works with the removal of rpg elements such "We don't want to gatekeep dialogues in skill checks" and the decision to pamper the player and protecting it from cyberpsichosis makes me think the pen and paper fans are just not even considered.

In the other hand we know we can upgrade our weapons. Basically all the FPS questions are answered this makes me very sad and disappointed.

 

[Rawls]

That is the core problem for me that in order to get a broader audience the fan of the pen and paper got put aside.

But I mean they were warning about changing the way things worked all the way back in 2012.

"For hardcore Cyberpunk 2020 fans out there, twiddling with rules in such a way may seem like blasphemy. But rest assured that we are working very closely with Mike Pondsmith to ensure that the unique feel of the original, paper game is preserved intact. Of course we may need to change some things, add new elements or even drop the ones that simply do not work in a video game ('Geology' skill, anyone?)" (emphasis added). The original blog post is now gone, but quotes of it can be found - https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2012-10-19-what-we-know-about-cd-projekt-reds-cyberpunk-2077-game-so-far.

The promise is about the unique feel of the game, not about specific mechanics. I remember reading that way back when and feeling very confident that they would drop the turn based stuff, make it an action RPG (like other CDPR games), and have a more modernized combat system. I think the danger of Friday night firefights will be better represented in real time anyways.

Also, was dialogue in CP2020 locked behind skill gates? I guess if a player could be locked out of something if they lacked the knowledge to even discuss it, but that gets into the really specific knowledge skills that were never going to make it into a cRPG in the first place. You could always try saying something in CP2020, only how effective it was at persuading others was effected by skill check. Skill checks in persuasion / intimidation / seduction in a cRPG more reflect mood swings of the NPCs that the skill of the PC. Unfortunately those skills' representation doesn't transfer especially well to video game format.

Third, I never considered exotics a central part of CP2020.

Finally, we don't know how cyberpsychosis is going to be represented in the game. But we know it will be there, that there is a mechanic for humanity cost, and that the player character cannot go full cyberpsycho. This is the only one I am a bit concerned about ... but so long as humanity cost is a mechanic that limits use of tech, and that having too much effects gameplay, I'll be happy. I'm hopeful humanity cost may at least effect dialogue and street cred.

 

[kofeiiniturpa]

The promise is about the unique feel of the game, not about specific mechanics.

Not "specific" mechanics, no. But the mechanics - overall - do add to that.... "unique" feel.

And in the context of that "promise" -

"For hardcore Cyberpunk 2020 fans out there, twiddling with rules in such a way may seem like blasphemy. But rest assured that we are working very closely with Mike Pondsmith to ensure that the unique feel of the original, paper game is preserved intact."

- as far as I understand it, they are trying to reassure the 2020 fans about the mechanics.

And so far... it looks like anything but that.