- Status
https://www.windowscentral.com/cyberpunk-2077-can-be-finished-without-killing-anyone-says-cd-projekt-red
Post automatically merged:
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.
Yes, but now more and more they copy some stupid stuff from each other, first it was CP2077 is Single player, now we will have multi player why? all the Battle royale came out and make a lot of money.
I also don't like they make milion NPC who have some kinde schedule, that you can find out if you follow them for 24h, ok nice but what for? since from all those NPC 98% will have 0 interaction with you.
I also don't like they make milion NPC who have some kinde schedule, that you can find out if you follow them for 24h, ok nice but what for? since from all those NPC 98% will have 0 interaction with you.
Err.. Dishonored was pretty heavily marketed for its world changes based on your approach (lethal or non-lethal).
If 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.
I still would like that both Lethal and non lethal option can branch in more endings of event and story.
That means matter all are sapred or all are killed
Post automatically merged:
Exactly
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.
Consider dialogue for a second. You could have various avenues for manipulation in dialogue. Intimidation, seduction, bluffing, even slipping your hand in unnoticed to snatch an important item at the right time. These could be integrated into the progression system in a meaningful way. Where the player actually feels like choices they made in regards to those "skills" matter. The player feels like they have a developed character. One they chose to develop down a certain path for a certain purpose.
This same line of thinking could be applied to a lot of facets of the game play. It doesn't have to be Biology or Geology. Kofe's point was these "other" aspects of character development and progression tend to be ignored in modern video games. Those abilities are a huge component of getting that developed character feeling. They flesh out the build. They make it unique. They can have meaningful impacts in the game play.
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.
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.
And most "amusing" part is none of those things actually define a game as an RPG!
The Witcher series was an RPG because you played Geralt and there were definite limits on things he would, and wouldn't do because of who he, as a character, was. Yes, the player made the decisions, but couldn't make ones at odds with Geralts basic personality. Geralt could be a nice guy, or a dick, but couldn't be a "paladin" or a psychopath.
Last edited:
Yes, it requires work. There's no argument here.
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.
The on going trend streamlining and cutting things out is what has led to the situation that games feel samey and lacking of features as far as systems and the actual gameplay goes. Storytelling has gone forward in strides (sometimes even too far as it has started to strongarm the design and trumping other features in it's path, rather than actually working with them), but gameplay has actually declined severely with RPG's.
And the thing is, if you prepaint these sorts of ideas black and ugly before even exploring them, you will never know what could've become of them if given the same amount of love and focus as writing and combat design seems to be getting.
If you expect it to be done the worst way possible, sure.
Fair enough.
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.
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.
The issue is missed opportunities and narrowed experience through excessive streamlining of RPG mechanics, and that seemingly people oppose bringing them back for reasons that are mostly about preferences for simpler experiences closer to action/adveture games than RPG's, but also sometimes even ignorant of what has been suggested.
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.
Post automatically merged:
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.
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.
But it doesn’t. I’m not sure how to respond to that.
There is nothing setting the bar to unreachable heights with impossible design (I don’t even know where that is coming from, certainly not from anything I’ve spoken of). Nothing outside of a misguided idea that that’s how it would need to be for some reason I can’t understand, and the unwillingness to even try because you can already lure in money with much more effortless shiny twiggly things.
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 otherwise
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 
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.
In a shooter this is less obvious because your choices are pretty much limited to who to kill with what weapon in what order.
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.
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.
Yes. I don’t recognize what I’ve said from some of the responses I’ve got.
Lifesim... impossible design through extreme skillbloat... too expensive... too much work for too small crowd...
None of that was the point. And the latter two are untrue to boot.
Buuut, it’s not the first time I’ve had to wonder if there’s something wrong in my output.
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'.
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. Not for questioning anyone's ability to do so. On the contrary. But it is due to the fact that we basically know nothing about the game. We haven't experienced the choices of completing tasks. We don't know whether these choices are fun or not. Consequently, we don't know what is lacking in terms of the available choices for completing missions. Maybe they won't lack anything. Maybe they will. Bottom line, we simply don't know.
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.
Last edited:
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".
Am I sure this will be the case? Nope. CDPR might surprise me. It'd be great if they did surprise me. I highly doubt the information we've seen thus far for the character progression systems are the complete picture. Unfortunately, it's the typical trend for these type of games nowadays. Likewise, the TW3 progression system left... a lot to be desired. It was only given a pass because of the game quality in various other areas.
I'll double back and try to answer your question.
I'd think the dialogue suggestion made earlier would fit. Your character has various dialogue related skills they can improve to steer conversation in certain directions. You can seduce, intimidate, bluff, covertly pick up or steal stuff, etc.
To throw out another random idea, perhaps your character has an Anatomy skill. Say, hypothetically, this allows you to harvest implants or cyberware in the field. Perhaps you buy a scalpel, hacksaw or some type of toolkit somewhere and can then use it to cut out the important bits from dead NPC's you blast in the face, stab, blow up or interact with via some quest (say, finding a dead body in a bathtub).
Maybe a skilled character can perform these actions quickly. Maybe at some point an unskilled player decides to take this action, it takes forever and, due to the delay, the "bad guys" show up and you're forced into a shootout or a risky escape. Hell, you could even integrate it into some type of crafting system where the player makes an attempt to harvest "gear" and skilled vs unskilled falls on a spectrum where the yields range from junk to semi-usable gear in need of repair or fully functioning equipment.
These are two simple examples. I could do this all day. I'm sure Kofe could as well
. The underlying point is there is a long list of ways a non-combat skill, most people would think couldn't serve any useful purpose, can be added to the game. It can have extremely relevant uses, be meaningful and, most importantly, allow the player to fine tune how the character interacts with the game world. You cannot get that with a simplified progression system. All too often the progression systems end up having wide swaths of abilities stuffed together to lean out the meat, so to speak. This is perfectly fine to remove redundancies. It's not fine if it streamlines the character progression in a way where those tiny intricacies of character development get lost.
- Status