What is your biggest fear regarding CP2077

+
Status
Not open for further replies.
I'm not suggesting a lifesim. Not at all. Just gameplay and characterbuild variety and diversity.

But, you are. This bit in particular:

A skill biology to learn things from animals and plants? A skill for anatomy to learn from your fallen foes? Geology for minerals? Languages for... getting to try and interpret spoken and written words of foreign languages, and speak them yourself? Cryptology to decipher hidden messages in graffiti and posters? Forgery to make different levels of counterfeit ID (maybe you can decieve yourself a loan from bank with counterfeit ID and good negotiations skill, but you'd also need to spend the money fast before they notice you were a fraud and shut your fraud account... or perhaps you can get access to palces you'd otherwise couldn't with fake ID, just be careful you don't get caught inside... etc)? Human perception to learning behavioral psychology by oberving people? Swimming, so that you can... swim? Driving so that you can... drive? Negotiation so that you can haggle a better bargain (and I mean actually having to do the haggling, not just skill automatically adjusting prices...).

Adding things like a geology skill or biology, languages and who knows what other profession lifelike-skill would undeniably shift the focus of the game (and the player) to a much more broad specter of possibility without playing an important part in the overall experience. The choice, when it comes to choosing between many life-like skills and activities AND making it optional, non-mandatory to the experience but at the same time still meaningful and represented in the game IS a simulation, a character development one, but still a simulation. And that's a far cry from what they are making.

While those certainly serve a purpose in the PnP RPG where basically ANY game is a simulation whose only confines are the imaginations of it's participants and it's own rules ( which are often bended to better suit the situation ), in videogame RPG's they end up as a amusing alternative at best or a tiresome chore at worst.

The thing with TTRPG's is that the rules are there to offer a means of channeling one's imagination and creativity while taking part in the social experience, the more "skills" it places at the player disposal, the more he's encouraged to use and diversify the experience. They're the skeleton, the game is made by the players. Which can't be said for videogames, in great part for the reason @Rawls pointed out previously, but also due to the structure of a videogame. Where in PnP games players can, for all intents and purposes create content, in videogames that's not possible.

But all things considering, i agree with you. A simulation, a true virtual simulation is one that would allow you to take any role, in any way, with as many or as little skills/activities as you'd want (or can) and the world it takes place in allows, including but not limited to NPC activities/skills while still presenting a purpose, a narrative that's fluid, changing but substantial at the same time. But that wouldn't simply be an RPG or Immersive Sim anymore, but something much much more.
 
Translating PnP to video game it a massive challenge. Latest example is Pathfinder: Kingmaker. They did a fantastic job, but had to gut 90% of the rulebooks to make it work, and boy, it works like a charm.
 
But, you are. This bit in particular:

No. I really am not.

I'm not asking for a series of pointless activities to keep the player busy for the sake of being busy. Everything needs to have a purpose of some sort in the overall shceme of things... like how the missions and stories unfold and where they lead to.

Adding things like a geology skill or biology, languages and who knows what other profession lifelike-skill would undeniably shift the focus of the game (and the player) to a much more broad specter of possibility without playing an important part in the overall experience.

All the skills are... "lifelike" already. And the focus of the game - to tell a story of V through your actions and decisions about characterbuild - isn't going anywhere. Not in the slightest. If anything, it would give V - the role you are playing - a much bigger sense of ownership because your options over what s/he is and will become and what all ways you have of interacting with the game are far greater in numbers, even if some of those stats might not carry the same weight as, say, gun skills.

Adding skills to govern a broader spectrum of tasks and activities, some of which are already in the game but without skill governance, only shifts the feel of gameplay and makes even the lesser tasks feel like they matter more (since there'd be a progressable range of aptitude to govern each of them) to the player, and the gameplay through them is more rewarding.

While those certainly serve a purpose in the PnP RPG ... in videogame RPG's they end up as a amusing alternative at best or a tiresome chore at worst.

That's only if they are done badly.

The thing with TTRPG's...

There's no need to lecture me about PnP games and their differences to cRPG's with their limitations. I'm well aware, I assure you. And I have (always) taken that into account when writing my posts.

This isn't an issue about the accuracy of PnP simulation. It's about the narrowness of gameplay opportunities.

But all things considering, i agree with you. A simulation, a true virtual simulation is one that would allow you to take any role, in any way, with as many or as little skills/activities as you'd want (or can) and the world it takes place in allows, including but not limited to NPC activities/skills while still presenting a purpose, a narrative that's fluid, changing but substantial at the same time. But that wouldn't simply be an RPG or Immersive Sim anymore, but something much much more.

A game like that might be nice, but that's not really what I'm asking for or what I was talking about.

The original point was the neglecting of non-combat related gameplay opportunities - and here in particular with CP2077, which seems to be quite combat focused (as expected).

I laid out a number of example possibilities and - perhaps naively - thought that it would be clear that they were just that, examples. Not direct suggestions, that the game has to have all those and the infinite number of possibilities I left open with "I could go on and on."

This is a problem when trying to communicate complex issues through text on a limited format and foreign language. Misinterpretation, accidental and sometimes even willful. And through that, the arguments make it seem (and I'm not convinced that that is entirely out of misinterpretation) like there's so much opposition to RPG mechanics here (over years of observing the forums), that one might think people don't really even want the game to be an RPG, but only in the slightest of senses.
 
Keep in mind D&D was origionally a supplement/expansion for a miniatures wargame (i.e. Chainmail).

While it's true a good many PnP games focus on combat just as many don't.
Try "Call of Cthulhu" sometime.

Not only that, there's nothing really baked in to most RPGs - D&D included - that highlights combat above all else. How much combat is found in any session is entirely up to the GM.
 
I'm not asking for a series of pointless activities to keep the player busy for the sake of being busy. Everything needs to have a purpose of some sort in the overall scheme of things... like how the missions and stories unfold and where they lead to.

That was my assumption in the first place which led to my lengthy reply.

Including a vast number of non-combat alternative skills, fleshing them out, implementing them in a relevant way with the story AND the world would require a massive effort for them to not be ultimately reduced to some random roll here and there for the sake of "RPG"-ness.

All the skills are... "lifelike" already. And the focus of the game - to tell a story of V through your actions and decisions about characterbuild - isn't going anywhere. Not in the slightest. If anything, it would give V - the role you are playing - a much bigger sense of ownership because your options over what s/he is and will become and what all ways you have of interacting with the game are far greater in numbers, even if some of those stats might not carry the same weight as, say, gun skills.

My point was, more =/= better, it's usually the opposite. Narrowing down the character skills in a way that serves and influences the story in meaningful ways can serve a game better and has, multiple times before.

Adding skills to govern a broader spectrum of tasks and activities, some of which are already in the game but without skill governance, only shifts the feel of gameplay and makes even the lesser tasks feel like they matter more (since there'd be a progressable range of aptitude to govern each of them) to the player, and the gameplay through them is more rewarding.

Or non-rewarding. Constantly crashing into things because i didn't put one more point into driving while being chased by goons in a story mission which i had no power over isn't fun nor is it a rewarding system. If i knew from the beginning that's what the mission would be i'd have done it. It's like that with most computer RPG's that are filled with skills that are "lifelike". No matter how you do it there's no conceivable way the player would know what the applicability or relevance the skill is in the game, thus it's not really a role play, if my choice is softly dictated by the game after i experienced it and not my character. No, keep the skills relevant in tune with story, where, no matter what you pick the game has a way to make your choice satisfying - this isn't to say you shouldn't be allowed to fail, but fail in a way that is based on your wrong choices in applying your skills not in a you chose the wrong skill now you fail - the less variables there are the more depth those choices can have.

There's no need to lecture me about PnP games and their differences to cRPG's with their limitations. I'm well aware, I assure you. And I have (always) taken that into account when writing my posts.

I wasn't really lecturing you.. It served the point i was making and i think it's a distinction that should be made since even if we're aware, others might not be as much.

This isn't an issue about the accuracy of PnP simulation. It's about the narrowness of gameplay opportunities.

I think they're related. A sufficiency advanced digital role-playing game would be akin to a simulation, with vast and emergent game-play/story opportunities one that might be as fluid and all-encompassing as a PnP version of an RPG.

This is a problem when trying to communicate complex issues through text on a limited format and foreign language. Misinterpretation, accidental and sometimes even willful. And through that, the arguments make it seem (and I'm not convinced that that is entirely out of misinterpretation) like there's so much opposition to RPG mechanics here (over years of observing the forums), that one might think people don't really even want the game to be an RPG, but only in the slightest of senses.

I think that RPG's don't boil down to "how many skills are there", far from it. I think it's more about "how does the game change to my character". If the game dosen't have non-combat skills or perhaps those interaction are handled thorough different means a la cyberware, that's not a problem as long as the choices concerning my character actually have an impact on the story and the world that's plenty to qualify it as an RPG in my and maybe, from the sound of it, other people's books.

Besides, not all rolepleyers enjoy non-combat oriented games, be they tabletop or otherwise. Claiming a game is "less RPG" for not including them is neither fair nor accurate.
 
fair enough, but I honestly don't think this is the case of "one or the other". Adding skill checks for everything is not that demanding (not talking about development time, just CPU/GPU/RAM), I think it's a deliberate choice of devs who want to make an action-RPG (action game with C&C and stats) which needs to be fun and appealing for a broad range of gamers.
Plus, CDPR failed TW3's progression system where geralt had like only 50 skill points to spend throughout the game in few "+X% DMG" skills (it didn't offer much more than that in terms of skills) and still it was unbalanced as fuck at the point they had to gate everything behind levels not to break the game completely (and if we got it right, they did the same for CP2077).
a couple of weeks ago I was replaying the mission when you save hjalmar in undvik, I was level 20-1 and, since I was there, I diverged for like 20 meters from the dotted line to get the tools for the master blacksmith and a level 26 (only five levels above me) troll was there. 20 fucking meters away from level 20 enemies I was supposed to fight. I decided to try anyway but nooooooooo.... 5 levels! I hit that troll with the best witcher sword, oil and potions, nothing, I couldn't even see a small HP loss... I can't believe we'll have the same shit in CP2077, 5 years later
So I wouldn't look at CDPR for deep RPG mechanics, since they haven't made a single game so far which has them and has them right. Obsidian and Larian are more trustworthy on this regard.

First two games had great mechanics. TW3 suffered because the mechanics clearly didn't get the same amount of attention the world/story elements did. And the levels weren't put in as a remedy to underlying problems, they were there to help steer the player as main story missions played out, and the direct inspiration was the Gothic series. Keep in mind TW3 was made in 3.5 years which is actually a short cycle given the scope of the game. CP has a team twice as big and with twice the dev time so hopefully they'll have better balancing this time around and a more dynamic skill tree.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, but I'm not really talking about sneaking past battles or speaking my way through, nor tinkering for better weapons and armor or brewing potions to help in fights for that matter. That's the basic stuff that's pretty much expected of RPG-likes these days.

I'm talking about the less usuals stuff. Interacting with the world in different ways.

Say you had a fantasy game like Skyrim where you're a newbie in the land... what about a skill for mapping that let's your character draw his own maps or read premade ones? Or navigate without one if that's not what you'd want to do...

A skill biology to learn things from animals and plants? A skill for anatomy to learn from your fallen foes? Geology for minerals? Languages for... getting to try and interpret spoken and written words of foreign languages, and speak them yourself? Cryptology to decipher hidden messages in graffiti and posters? Forgery to make different levels of counterfeit ID (maybe you can decieve yourself a loan from bank with counterfeit ID and good negotiations skill, but you'd also need to spend the money fast before they notice you were a fraud and shut your fraud account... or perhaps you can get access to palces you'd otherwise couldn't with fake ID, just be careful you don't get caught inside... etc)? Human perception to learning behavioral psychology by oberving people? Swimming, so that you can... swim? Driving so that you can... drive? Negotiation so that you can haggle a better bargain (and I mean actually having to do the haggling, not just skill automatically adjusting prices...).

The list is endless. I could go on and on. And the post would become unreadable if you started listing what all you could do with the information and effects that might come with all that.

Stuff outside combat is almost always taken for granted. The character is expected to do it all no matter how complex the issue might be when looked past the surface and when there is a skill or stat governing the task, it is streamlined for babies and it's ultimately naught but a moment in passing as far as gameplay longevity goes. But for some reason he never can shoot a gun or swing a blade until late game. It's skewed and neglecting a great deal of potential, and just to make combat the centerpiece of the game because most games do.

What if combat was an incident you'd just have to cope with, a result of your (usually bad) choices, but the game centered around a broader level of interactivity? That if you were to specialize just for combat, you'd only get around a fourth of what the game had to offer in terms of getting through it because there'd be so much more at the center of the gameplay experience to find and do and excell at and to build your character for (and not just random activities to fill the world with, but missions and storylines that relied on things that weren't related at all to combat or active combat avoidance, and which, at times, denied combat altogether).
Yeah, but I'm not really talking about sneaking past battles or speaking my way through, nor tinkering for better weapons and armor or brewing potions to help in fights for that matter. That's the basic stuff that's pretty much expected of RPG-likes these days.

I'm talking about the less usuals stuff. Interacting with the world in different ways.

Say you had a fantasy game like Skyrim where you're a newbie in the land... what about a skill for mapping that let's your character draw his own maps or read premade ones? Or navigate without one if that's not what you'd want to do...

A skill biology to learn things from animals and plants? A skill for anatomy to learn from your fallen foes? Geology for minerals? Languages for... getting to try and interpret spoken and written words of foreign languages, and speak them yourself? Cryptology to decipher hidden messages in graffiti and posters? Forgery to make different levels of counterfeit ID (maybe you can decieve yourself a loan from bank with counterfeit ID and good negotiations skill, but you'd also need to spend the money fast before they notice you were a fraud and shut your fraud account... or perhaps you can get access to palces you'd otherwise couldn't with fake ID, just be careful you don't get caught inside... etc)? Human perception to learning behavioral psychology by oberving people? Swimming, so that you can... swim? Driving so that you can... drive? Negotiation so that you can haggle a better bargain (and I mean actually having to do the haggling, not just skill automatically adjusting prices...).

The list is endless. I could go on and on. And the post would become unreadable if you started listing what all you could do with the information and effects that might come with all that.

Stuff outside combat is almost always taken for granted. The character is expected to do it all no matter how complex the issue might be when looked past the surface and when there is a skill or stat governing the task, it is streamlined for babies and it's ultimately naught but a moment in passing as far as gameplay longevity goes. But for some reason he never can shoot a gun or swing a blade until late game. It's skewed and neglecting a great deal of potential, and just to make combat the centerpiece of the game because most games do.

What if combat was an incident you'd just have to cope with, a result of your (usually bad) choices, but the game centered around a broader level of interactivity? That if you were to specialize just for combat, you'd only get around a fourth of what the game had to offer in terms of getting through it because there'd be so much more at the center of the gameplay experience to find and do and excell at and to build your character for (and not just random activities to fill the world with, but missions and storylines that relied on things that weren't related at all to combat or active combat avoidance, and which, at times, denied combat altogether).

You're asking for an unrealistically complex game. A game that would take a decade to make, if not more, and shit tons of money. Geology, biology... I don't think a system that deep would interest most people. This is too hardcore gameplay.
 
I think this will become a more apparent "fear" once the next couple gameplay videos come out. I might be wrong but a good chunk of the gameplay we saw in the 2018 stuff was shooter. From what we've been told, this years E3 demo sounds like similar gameplay. Go here, get this, shoot anything that gets in your way. With a little bit of sneak past anything that gets in your way sprinkled on it
That's the problem, it's shooter by gameplay and stealth by story. They said that your play style will impact the story. So as I understand, to have a good story and ending you must to be not lethal. That means we have a shooter, where you don't allowed to kill people.
 
That's the problem, it's shooter by gameplay and stealth by story. They said that your play style will impact the story. So as I understand, to have a good story and ending you must to be not lethal. That means we have a shooter, where you don't allowed to kill people.

This is also a valid fear. But to befair, we know next to nothing about the story.
 
It's the same thing, when the story depends on your playstyle.
I don't really get your fear/point.
This is not Mass Effect, where for the "good" ending you need to be full paragon.
The story will play out on what you'll decide throughout the mainstory and major plotrelated sidequests and not if you kill or spare cyberthugs.
 
but it doesn't. They added the non-lethal approach after the game structure was pretty much done, there's no count for kills. It'll be like TW3, different endings will be decided through dialogue choices.
I hope so.
I don't really get your fear/point.
This is not Mass Effect, where for the "good" ending you need to be full paragon.
The story will play out on what you'll decide throughout the mainstory and major plotrelated sidequests and not if you kill or spare cyberthugs.
That what i want to be a paragon, but play in the game as a bloody shooter. Thought you can't complete Mass effect without killing. Also machine guns with not lethal bullets sounds rediculous in that setting.
 
I don't really get your fear/point.
This is not Mass Effect, where for the "good" ending you need to be full paragon.

No in Mass Effect even with full Renegade you can have good ending.
I also fear they pull what Dishonor did and force you to play stealth non lethal option to get good ending.
 
Did none of you play The Witcher 1 - 3?
Never was an ending decided via gameplay. Sure you didn't have the option to sneak around stealthy but I don't see any reason to have so little faith in CDPR.

I expect the outcome of the story to rely heavily on the decisions you'll make along the way and not on how you aproached your playthrough.
 
I might be wrong but can someone show me the quotes where a CP2077 dev said that the playstyle will affect the storys outcome? I can't recall them saying something like that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom