- Status
But, you are. This bit in particular:
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.
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.
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.
That's only if they are done badly.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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:
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.
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.
they never said anything like that, actually the game has no moral system at all.
It's the same thing, when the story depends on your playstyle.
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 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.
I hope so.
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.
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.
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.
But for the Witcher they never said your playstyle would affect the story.
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.
To be honest, developer of Dishonor didn't say that gameplay will affect story ending, but it happened anyway.
- Status