https://www.windowscentral.com/cyberpunk-2077-can-be-finished-without-killing-anyone-says-cd-projekt-redI 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.
Anyway that situation looks like DIshonored, when devs said that you can play as you want, but only patch they allo that not lethal stealth.Different studio/devs and different game/genre.
have you read that?
This is more of a personal choice of the playstyle of the player. However, there are cases when it's taken into account because it's important. It's important that you knock down the dude or you kill the dude, and so on... But if you, as a player, are going through, let's say the Grand Imperial Mall, you are knocking down forty Animals and you decided to, I don't know, spare a fifth of them, that's not really going to have that much impact.
That means matter all are sapred or all are killedhave you read that?
ExactlyIf that was made based on story choices. example if you kill a doctor who have cure for a plague, plague get more extreme kill more people and more bad event happened, than yes that would be little better, but if i get bad ending for killing 30 guards in outpost that is 100km from main story place yeah that is stupid.
I still would like that both Lethal and non lethal option can branch in more endings of event and story.
It was hyperbole. There are a lot of skills and tasks in various past video games completely unrelated to combat capable of having both interesting and relevant influences in CP2077. Much of the information I've seen so far indicates there isn't going to be a lot of that going around.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.
Agreed, but unfortunately it seems that any game with more then minimal dialog; character type choices beyond "warrior", "rogue", "mage"; any sort of branching or decision dialog; or even the most rudimentary skill/perk system is labeled as an RPG these days.I realize game design is difficult. Compromises have to be made. It's unrealistic to expect otherwise. The fact remains the "limited resources" card doesn't hold up in this case for games marketed as RPG's. That type of compromise for this particular genre of game is just... not cool.
Yes, it requires work. There's no argument here.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.
More doesn't equal to worse either. Not by default. Sometimes more is indeed better. We can argue for best and worst case scenarios over hypothetical situations, both being viable possibilities of outcome, and be none the wiser for it as nobody's changing their mind. But why bother since obviously everyone would root for the former. Nobody wants bad design, so why not be an advocate for good design? I'm more willing to risk for a bit of sloppiness to gain something special, than settle down with the normal and expected like every other game.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.
If you expect it to be done the worst way possible, sure.Or non-rewarding. Constantly crashing into...
Fair enough.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.
Well, in a sense, yeah, but that's stretching the point towards some sort of utopian ultimate design that's yet unreachable. It doesn't really forward the discussion. And bringing that to the table as if implying that somewhere between the lines that's what I'm going for, it'd be a strawman. But I don't think that's what you were going for.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.
Weeellll, that's kinda what I was talking about. I didn't say or imply that RPG's boil down to number of skills (they don't, although you can start drawing some conclusions if you can count the skills with the fingers of one hand), nor that anyone needed to enjoy non-combat oriented games (I didn't even suggest the game to be a non-combat game). None of the skills in the game are (or should not be) mandatory by themselves, so if non-combat gameplay doesn't interest one, he can leave it to others. Nor was the point about what is or isn't 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.
I don't think so. It sounds complex when written, but... Let's put it this way, you can make Witcher 3's skillsystem sound over the top complicated if you write it down, while in reality it is anything but.You're asking for an unrealistically complex game.
I'm saying there's a reason no one seems to have "set that example" you're desperate to see set. And i get it, i really do, but we're not going to get it, because for it to do well enough to draw mass appeal, it would have to be that unreachable (for now) design you're so quick to dismiss as unconstructive.Someone would need to set an example. To show what all can work. Obviously CDPR won't be ones to do it with CP2077 (I'd hope to be wrong, but what can you do), but shunning these kinds of ideas without giving them thought beyond caring about the developers' well being (getting overworked) or the studios wallet (no money), and not trusting them be able to handle it (it'll be badly done anyway), is... not very constructive, to put it politely.
But it doesn’t. I’m not sure how to respond to that.I'm saying there's a reason no one seems to have "set that example" you're desperate to see set. And i get it, i really do, but we're not going to get it, because for it to do well enough to draw mass appeal, it would have to be that unreachable (for now) design you're so quick to dismiss as unconstructive.
I don't think this will have any bearing at all on the overall story. Maybe a couple small quest lines or dialogues but it certainly won't be limiting players of story. I haven't seen anything mentioned to indicate otherwiseThat'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.
Your only salvation for this will be mods. This isn't a life simulator. There will be plenty of restrictions and paths the game forces you down.I understand that there is an emphasis on freedom and freedom to make choices, but I still fear that it may possible not be "freedom" enough, and that I will still feel trapped or helpless when trying to do certain things in the game a certain way. Certain things, but perhaps also everything. That's my main fear. Just the presence of limitations. Allow me to fight my way into a state where I can shed all the limitations that I don't like. Give me the power to express my passion and shape myself and the universe around me. Thank you for reading. Peace
That's ALWAYS the case with video games tho. You can only do what the game is programmed to permit.I understand that there is an emphasis on freedom and freedom to make choices, but I still fear that it may possible not be "freedom" enough, and that I will still feel trapped or helpless when trying to do certain things in the game a certain way.
There is a reason, sure. It's not because we're talking about an unattainable goal here. Requesting a more comprehensive skill/stat/perk system to include tasks outside of long gun, short gun, hacking or engineering isn't a tall ask for a RPG. Clearly, adding actions into the progression system, if those actions do very little to alter the game play in a meaningful way, is unrealistic. Expanding the progression system to include tasks outside of. "Shoot, hack or engineer.", isn't nearly the same thing.I'm saying there's a reason no one seems to have "set that example" you're desperate to see set. And i get it, i really do, but we're not going to get it, because for it to do well enough to draw mass appeal, it would have to be that unreachable (for now) design you're so quick to dismiss as unconstructive.
Yes. I don’t recognize what I’ve said from some of the responses I’ve got.Somehow we ended up at life simulators and a mass number of skills with no functional purpose. It's safe to say those lines of discussion are based on a misinterpretation somewhere. None of those things were being asked for in the couple of posts Kofe made to start off this particular discussion.
It is definitely not a tall task for a RPG, but these choices are limited to the character we are playing. So what would V, a mercenary for hire, do in fulfilling his/her deeds? Since we are talking about a mercenary, most likely the choices will be limited to something like 'shoot/hack/stealth'.There is a reason, sure. It's not because we're talking about an unattainable goal here. Requesting a more comprehensive skill/stat/perk system to include tasks outside of long gun, short gun, hacking or engineering isn't a tall ask for a RPG.
Fair point. I'll go ahead and toss out my biggest fear then.... My biggest fear is the game will go with the "action RPG" trend and place the lowest modicum of work into the character progression system such that it fits the definition of "RPG".In my humble opinion, I would say let's keep the discussion more related to possible fears or concerns rather than criticism. Because it's not productive to criticize something that is not out there yet.
I'll double back and try to answer your question.But if there is another approach, not just an example, that is different from these choices that can fit the profile of V in Cyberpunk's world setting, do state it. My bet, however, is that no one will be able too.