What kind of side activities/mini games would you like included in Cyberpunk 2077?

[reidyboy102998]

What kind of side activities/mini games would you like included in Cyberpunk 2077?

I would want bounty hunter side quests (capturing an outlaw or criminal if you are good in the game) or arcade machine mini games. What would you want? Leave a comment below!

 

[Claylex]

I would want bounty hunter side quests (capturing an outlaw or criminal if you are good in the game) or arcade machine mini games. What would you want? Leave a comment below!

The last time I wanted an arcade mini-game everyone laughed at me.XD

But still even if its 2077, I still kinda want the 80s vibe going in.

So what do we need? ARCADE MACHINES!

Or at least in my mind.

Anything else personally I want bounty hunting, drinking, hell maybe some activities that reckless teenagers would do since most of them are poor and Night-City is dangerous.

 

[Suhiira]

Few if any.

I bought the game to play it not some stupid minigame.

I REALLY detest the "lockpicking" and "hacking" minigames in Fallout.

 

[Blackshatan]

Gwent plz.

Hacking also should definitely be included.

The last time I wanted an arcade mini-game everyone laughed at me.XD

But still even if its 2077, I still kinda want the 80s vibe going in.

So what do we need? ARCADE MACHINES!

Or at least in my mind.

Anything else personally I want bounty hunting, drinking, hell maybe some activities that reckless teenagers would do since most of them are poor and Night-City is dangerous.

I agree.

 

[Shando92286]

Few if any.

I bought the game to play it not some stupid minigame.

I REALLY detest the "lockpicking" and "hacking" minigames in Fallout.

Really? I love those so much! Hacking I am sure will be in the game. I would also love a cyberpunk version of Gwent! Game is myfavorite part of the game. Or something better would be cool too!
A bounty hunting mini game would br cool, sort of like contracts!

 

[kofeiiniturpa]

Few if any.

I bought the game to play it not some stupid minigame.

I REALLY detest the "lockpicking" and "hacking" minigames in Fallout.

Agreed. There just isn't anything really to be gained by making skill-governed activities as minigames. It always goes wrong somewhere along to the way.

They are unfair to the player base in that some feel them piss easy, which might beg the question "why are they there to bother the player", and some just can't handle them no matter what, which begs to question what do the PC's skills even mean, why are they there if a suppsed "master" hacker or locksmith or what ever has hard time even with the easiest of tasks. Then there are those who just don't care one way or the other, but they obviously don't count since they don't care.

I haven't ever seen an RPG do well with its minigames. They are repetitive and boring and unnecessary filler content. Conventional skill checks/rolls are fair and square for everyone. They reflect the character appropriately, are faster and cause much less teeth grinding.

That said, I don't mind some occasional gambling minigames (I'm going to assume there won't be a "Gabling" skill); an assortment of dice and card games, and perhaps some arcade style puzzle terminals.

I hope, too, that they don't go overboard with all sorts of irrelevant side activities and repeatable side missions. Some are just fine if designed and adjusted properly, but overflow always makes it sour. And there's the danger that they - the sort of never ending bounty hunts, or similiarly never ending more mundane job assignments for example - fuck up the games more relevant economies (eg. money and XP). I'd want these sorts things to be very infrequent, and designed to be less like busywork.

 

[kanonite]

Multiplayer death match being presented as an in-universe VR game.

 

[Narshredder]

Obviously arcade games would be a great fit. Besides that "hacking" puzzles similar to Fallout's terminals would be pretty fun.

 

[Suhiira]

A bounty hunting mini game would br cool, sort of like contracts!

Bounty hunting where you actually have to track down and capture/kill the bounty would be fine, that's not a minigame.
Cards or dice for gambling would be fine too.
But why does my CHARACTERS lockpicking skill depends on my PLAYER ability to play a stupid minigame?

 

[Sardukhar]

Bounty hunting where you actually have to track down and capture/kill the bounty would be fine, that's not a minigame.
Cards or dice for gambling would be fine too.
But why does my CHARACTERS lockpicking skill depends on my PLAYER ability to play a stupid minigame?

Because it's fun. It must be fun, these things are everywhere now.

Don't you -like- fun?

 

[lord_blex]

But why does my CHARACTERS lockpicking skill depends on my PLAYER ability to play a stupid minigame?

same reason combat depends on your abilities as well? a game is about agency and interaction. granted fiddling with a bobby pin isn't the most engaging thing in the world, but it does make sense if they want to let you do it, instead of auto-passing or auto-failing a check/roll. whether you like it or not is another question.

 

[Suhiira]

Don't you -like- fun?

Your definition of it or mine?

same reason combat depends on your abilities as well? a game is about agency and interaction.

If the game is an FPS I'm 100% OK with my skill as a player determining my combat abilities.
If the game is an RPG I'm 100% opposed to it.

RPGs are about playing a character that has abilities (i.e. game stats) and skills you as a player quite probably do not. That characters skills should determine the outcome. And if they're not, what's the point of having character with skills? Just create an avatar and allow the players skills to dictate the outcomes.

 

[Sardukhar]

Just create an avatar and allow the players skills to dictate the outcomes.

We've been over this before, but all RPGs rely on the player's wits, comprehension, tactical sense, (in combat) creativity, etc, etc. Some players do much better in RPGs than others, with similar stats. Some are just better at them.

So there is always a strong element of player ability over character ability.

Not to mention, just tapping a button to hack a terminal or whatever is pretty boring. It becomes interesting only if it is one of several options to bypass the terminal. Then your character build, ( again, some players are better at that than others) and imagination/perception becomes important.

In the end, definitions aside, the idea is to involve the player. Pure stat RPGs had no real way to do this for physical tasks, videogames do.

Socially, of course, your real life skills are also very important in tabletop, for example.

So I don't think minigames hamper RPGs, nor does role-playing have to be about character skills. It's about the opportunities to play a role - and if minigames enhance that, great.

 

[kofeiiniturpa]

and if minigames enhance that, great.

How would they? I mean in any other distinguishable way than how puzzles enhance a conventional adventure game? And if - if digging deeper with this - that's the end purpose, to have the player solve these bigger and smaller puzzles (be it lockpicking or hacking or combat or what ever) through his/her own dexterity with the given control scheme, why have an implied character ability behind it to distract the gameplay at all? And once we get down to that road, why even call it an RPG in the first place; where there is it anymore if the role of the role is cast aside (and in effect, downgraded to that of a mere virtual costume) in favor of player activity - what would be the distinguising element compared to other similiar games that are not called RPG's?

 

[Hoplite_22]

How would they? I mean in any other distinguishable way than how puzzles enhance a conventional adventure game? And if - if digging deeper with this - that's the end purpose, to have the player solve these bigger and smaller puzzles (be it lock picking or hacking or combat or what ever) through his/her own dexterity with the given control scheme, why have an implied character ability behind it to distract the game play at all? And once we get down to that road, why even call it an RPG in the first place; where there is it anymore if the role of the role is cast aside (and in effect, downgraded to that of a mere virtual costume) in favor of player activity - what would be the distinguishing element compared to other similar games that are not called RPG's?

you (the player) are playing the role of the protagonist. you make the decisions. you shape the out come. that is an RPG, anything that has made these decisions for you isn't. Liner FPSs for example give no agency what so ever, just some action set pieces to play though.

skills, stats, leveling, nothing to do with it really being an RPG, that stuff is a reward mechanic which is why it is in so many FPSs these days.

A good RPG will ask you for decisions and show you the outcome based on that. a bad one will ignore that stuff and present you with three buttons to press.

 

[kofeiiniturpa]

]skills, stats, leveling, nothing to do with it really being an RPG, that stuff is a reward mechanic which is why it is in so many FPSs these days.

On the contrary. It has everything to do with a game being an RPG. Those stats and skills are the character you are supposed to be playing (and gradually building). it only becomes a "reward mechanic" when the game doesn't offer anything else an RPG would; and this is also the reason why so many supposed RPG's these days are practically indistinguishable from other games (and why the term RPG has stopped really meaning anything in the mainstream).

A good RPG will ask you for decisions and show you the outcome based on that. a bad one will ignore that stuff and present you with three buttons to press.

That's just interactive world and storytelling, an adventure simulation. There's no character definition without any metrics by which the game can provide and cut out opportunities for different PC's.

A good RPG gives the player the possibility to create and guide several different character with inherently different strengths and weaknesses through which to express him/her and reacts to that accordingly.


A lot of people (here and elsewhere) want - or would be fine with - the game to be just some sort of scifi GTA knockoff with some CYOA storytelling - as long as the art style delivers adequately. But I'm vehemently opposed to that. I'd wish it to actually try to be an RPG with as few corners cut as possible on its route to being just a narrative driven action game with a token and very loose ability system that doesn't really do anything (because it doesn't really want to be an RPG mechanically).

This is the only thing that really concerns me about this game. I know CDPR can create a storyline, I know they can create the mood, but can they deliver on gameplay (minigames or the lack thereof included) - there's already been some worrying statements. I'm not interested at all in a game that poses as an RPG but plays and feels like an action adventure (my beef with Witcher 3 also).

 

[Blackshatan]

so you like watch dog's "press X to hack" system?
mini game is an essential part of a RPG.

 

[arkhenon]

@kofeiiniturpa You know, they can use the skills and abilities to make the minigames easier, or give you more abilities in them. Like how they did hacking in Deus Ex: Human Revolution. Adam Jensen had more tricks up his sleeve as you upgraded him on hacking. And actually putting myself in his shoes, trying to hack a system before getting caught using the programs that I had was an amazing feeling, and made me really excited sometimes. Much, much better than clicking on a footlocker to pick the lock with 82% chance in Wasteland 2... And then cheat by loading a save. Funny thing is, I never did that in DE: HR, because I accepted the fact that "I" failed (And it usually made sense that Adam failed too, because he did not have sufficient skills and programs to hack stuff). Player agency is important, I'd argue. Now, I'm not saying DE: HR did the skill system justice, as it was lacking. But at least it showed how a minigame can be connected with your skillset.

 

[kofeiiniturpa]

so you like watch dog's "press X to hack" system?
mini game is an essential part of a RPG.

No. I like Wasteland 2's (for one example) click to let the character do his best according to how I've built him -system. One that highlights the role and makes it independent of the players own weaknesses or strengths.

Minigames are in no way essential part of an RPG. It's an adventure/simulation element to give the player the control over the situation (over the role he is playing).

@kofeiiniturpa You know, they can use the skills and abilities to make the minigames easier, or give you more abilities in them. Like how they did hacking in Deus Ex: Human Revolution. Adam Jensen had more tricks up his sleeve as you upgraded him on hacking. And actually putting myself in his shoes, trying to hack a system before getting caught using the programs that I had was an amazing feeling, and made me really excited sometimes. Much, much better than clicking on a footlocker to pick the lock with 82% chance in Wasteland 2... And then cheat by loading a save. Funny thing is, I never did that in DE: HR, because I accepted the fact that "I" failed (And it usually made sense that Adam failed too, because he did not have sufficient skills and programs to hack stuff). Player agency is important, I'd argue. Now, I'm not saying DE: HR did the skill system justice, as it was lacking. But at least it showed how a minigame can be connected with your skillset.

I know that.

In Deus Ex HR (like in all games that do it like that), that hacking minigame was so overflowingly repetitive that it became more than a little frustrating. On top of which, the skill gating the attempt without any probabilities is probably the most rigid and gamey way of doing it. I can't (nor won't) argue what you like or don't like, we all have our tastes, but these sorts of repetitive (and like I said in an earlier post, never-done-right) minigames are among those things that I detest the most in the current day "RPG's" in how they force this annoying and repetitive busywork upon the player and undermine the character in character progression by replacing him/her with the player (and his respective talent with the given task), only combat stats not doing their job (due to the game needing to feel like an FPS for some reason) goes past that.

Playing a role in an RPG is (to me) to subject myself to the role and his abilities, not to play a "me" character whose in game character is removed because he can't do what I have built him to do or that he excells in areas he isn't supposed to due to how well or badly I can handle the control scheme. It's not "me", it might have an aspect and some morality aspects of mine and what ever, but he is an independent entity in the game. The role that I play.

Also, cheating by loading a save (and not accepting a defeat) is the player's own problem, not the games. The other side of it is most usually the player hoarding his skill points for not needing them, and then "opening a lock" when ever needed. That's far less "immersive" and far more gamey than accepting an occasional failure from the character. And besides, if one is to reload after every unsuccessful roll, surely he will reload (and keep retrying for as long as it takes) after an unsuccesful minigame too if there is a downside for failure.

 

[Sardukhar]

but these sorts of repetitive (and like I said in an earlier post, never-done-right) minigames are among those things that I detest the most in the current day "RPG's" in how they force this annoying and repetitive busywork upon the player and undermine the character in character progression by replacing him/her with the player (and his respective talent with the given task),.

I'm not a big fan of the busywork - I also hated waiting for the Wasteland 2 meter to fill, ugh - but I feel a stat-enhanced minigame could be fun. I did like DXHR hacking game, for example. If it includes a bit of exploration or story, that helps a lot.

Again, the character progression is always influenced by the player. My character building and puzzle-solving skills are greater than someone elses, even if their character has a higher Int or Cha or whatever, I'm going to have a much easier time of it in most CRPGs.

I watched my kids get wrecked in Fallout 4, not because I'm a better FPS player, ( they are), but because I read up and build an Agil/Crit build character and he rocks in combat.

So that means I have an advantage over them that is greater than my character. Nothing -wrong- with their characters in combat, James' was quite potent, it's just that with VATS and a good Crit build, you have an enormous advantage. Oh, and I had the wit to recognize a really nice gun I could buy from a merchant early game and maximize as fast as possible.

Again, that was -me-, not my Int 3 ( at the time), Perception 3 character. James' character on paper was as good or better at combat, but my superior build skills and gear expertise gave me a huge advantage.

So, yeah, minigame skill may or may not be affected by build or building skills, but it is simplistic to pretend that your character is separate from you. Separate physically, sure, and somewhat socially, ( only somewhat, since socially inept people often screw up or pick the jackass, less-XP-more-enemies response in-game as well), but it's just not accurate to pretend you don't have a huuuuge effect on how potent your character is.