What other franchise should CDPR take over?

+
NukeTheMoon;n9496961 said:
Lisbeth I see what you're saying but Suhiira's point still holds true to me, because while the city might be based off of a city with millions of people in it, there's no way that the city itself in the game being the physical size it is, could hold that many people.

It's akin to old RPGs where you entire a little hut and the inside is a multi layer labyrinth .

So according to your logic, after killing a huge amount of npcs in the city of San Andreas (which is possible) they shouldn't respawn.

San Andreas is not a "small village", but a huge metropolis. Perhaps that logic works with small villages like we see in Witcher 3, but not in a gigantic city with tons of houses and buildings. Not to mention that in Witcher 3 enemies respawn endlessly, both humans and monsters with a few exceptions.

It's either fully immersive/realistic or not. By saying that immersive rules apply only when it's convenient for you is atrocious.
 
Last edited:
Lisbeth_Salander;n9497011 said:
So according to your logic, after killing a huge amount of npcs in the city of San Andreas (which is possible) they shouldn't respawn.

San Andreas is not a "small village", but a huge metropolis. Perhaps that logic works with small villages like we see in Witcher 3, but not in a gigantic city with tons of houses and buildings. Not to mention that in Witcher 3 enemies respawn endlessly, both humans and monsters with a few exceptions.

It's either fully immersive/realistic or not. By saying that immersive rules aply only when it's convenient for you is atrocious.

I think you may be interpreting me incorrectly my friend, I don't actually have an argument for one or the other, but simply think his point is valid.

I understand the point of sometimes feeling like enemies are just endlessly spawning; the issue I would say is not so much that they are, but that it also feels like that is occurring.
If the world also doesn't appear support that kind of NPC density, it just becomes even more apparent.
Ghost Recon Wildlands had this issue where you could clear the top of a mountain from a field, go down the mountain, then go back to the first field, and enemies that had been cleared 5 minutes ago are now somehow back, standing around bored, and waiting for you.
https://youtu.be/EhB4JKoXqWs?t=559

I like when games, for example Skyrim caves, once cleared out, remain cleared out for a set period of time. GTA:SA is much more arcade like it how quickly it brings in enemies.

As with most things I think there is a happy medium.
I have played my share of FPS games where enemies endlessly spawn from closets, so I understand his perspective.
 
Lisbeth_Salander;n9497011 said:
So according to your logic, after killing a huge amount of npcs in the city of San Andreas (which is possible) they shouldn't respawn.

San Andreas is not a "small village", but a huge metropolis. Perhaps that logic works with small villages like we see in Witcher 3, but not in a gigantic city with tons of houses and buildings. Not to mention that in Witcher 3 enemies respawn endlessly, both humans and monsters with a few exceptions.

It's either fully immersive/realistic or not. By saying that immersive rules aply only when it's convenient for you is atrocious.

I think "anything" in gaming could be fun, so it's not a bad thing per se. But I would personally prefer if in Cyberpunk we could aproach to death/killings in a more mature way, if you call that "immersive" or "realistic" it's the same for me. I think there are a lot of "traditional conventions" in RPGs we kind of take for granted, like "killing for grinding XP". In the witcher series, as was in the old Bioware games (like Baldurs Gate), you took that rather naturally.

Its not that some gameplay set around killing thousands of "brainless NPCs" would be a total kill-joy for me, but I would be happilly surprised if the experience of death/killing people has more to it, more dimension, more moral consequence. And I think that aproach would benefit the setting also.
 
Jack_in_the-Green;n9497291 said:
I think "anything" in gaming could be fun, so it's not a bad thing per se. But I would personally prefer if in Cyberpunk we could aproach to death/killings in a more mature way, if you call that "immersive" or "realistic" it's the same for me. I think there are a lot of "traditional conventions" in RPGs we kind of take for granted, like "killing for grinding XP". In the witcher series, as was in the old Bioware games (like Baldurs Gate), you took that rather naturally.

Its not that some gameplay set around killing thousands of "brainless NPCs" would be a total kill-joy for me, but I would be happilly surprised if the experience of death/killing people has more to it, more dimension, more moral consequence. And I think that aproach would benefit the setting also.

Meaningfull battles are great. CP2077 shouldn't have wave after wave of mindless enemies for us to deal with, but the system that some games build to not make fights one in a walkthrough experience is sometimes fun.


San Andreas system was not perfect, but the core phylosophy of having a living world that acts on its own and is independent of quests is what I'm defending here. San Andreas gang war was not opitional, and if CP2077 has anything like San Andreas gang war then it should be completely opitional.

What I don't like is when things happen only during quests and when npcs in the open world exploration are "mindless zombies" that do absolutely nothing. What's wrong in wanting a open world with lively elements, specially when these very same elements are opitional?

GTA V is absolutely a disaster with its world, you can travel across all the map and nothing ever happens. It is an empty desert disguised as a city. Wouldn't it be nice to be walking around Night City and see a cyborg going crazy and seeing cops trying to put it down?

Or walk among Night City streets and start seeing a bunch of rival corporations destroying each other...would you interfere or would you simply watch them shoot one another? Imagine walking the streets and then you are approached by 5 punks demanding your cyberwares, would you hand them over or will you fight?

That feeling of not knowing what's going to happen next is great.

I'm defending ramdom elements here.
 
Last edited:
Is it really that bad for Night City to be a living city full of things happening in it instead of a empty desert like open world? I think it's great honestly.
 
Last edited:
Lisbeth_Salander;n9496811 said:
For San Andreas gang war system to not be immersive as you suggested, an average player needs to kill around 63 gang members per hour, considering that an average gang has 2.100 members, which means players need to kill more than 2.100 members of each gang in all 33 hours for the game not to be realistic.
And your character is the only person in the entire city involved in this gang war and must personally kill the membership of every gang in the city single-handedly?
Also, every gang member is willing to die for their homies, to the very last member of the gang?

Sorry ... not buying it.
 
Suhiira;n9497781 said:
And your character is the only person in the entire city involved in this gang war and must personally kill the membership of every gang in the city single-handedly?
Also, every gang member is willing to die for their homies, to the very last member of the gang?

Sorry ... not buying it.

It's fun who cares. Immersion is overated. If a game is 100% realistic it won't be fun, there needs to be a balance between immersion and fun.
 
Last edited:
Lisbeth_Salander;n9499991 said:
It's fun who cares. Immersion is overated.

I think "random stuff" as you put it is overrated. In a game that is +100 hours which I believe would be the case, that random stuff gets old pretty soon. And is prone to manufacture some illogical cringeworthy situations. Like the devs in CDPR have told of moments when the "system" in Witcher 3 had decided that each house in some village should have a ham sandwhich and other stuff IN EACH trunk, while people were complaining of hunger. They had to rein in that stuff. So, it creates complications. I would believe that for a system of randomly generated stuff which work properly and doesnt violate the rules of the system, you should give it a lot of work... Id rather they concentrate in handcrafting little environment -quests like in "Witcher 3" or "Red Dead Redemption" (from which they "borrowed" that idea) that "feel" random.

As long as the environment reacts to your decisions, or you can influence the environment/world, and it shows, Im happy.
For example, In Baldurs Gate2 there was a cool little thing: the city in which you had your hub was controlled by some sect of wizards who forbade the use of magic... if you had a random or quest related encounter with some enemies, and you used magic, the wizards would pop up, whoop your ass and throw you in jail (at night you could get away with it, but during the day and in public you got busted EVERY TIME). Then you had to decide if you should pay for bail, try to bribe the guards, or muscle your way out, each with its consequences. That whole repeat scenario was totally scripted, nothing was random, but as it was "triggered" by a possible random event, if fetl "fresh" and logical to the world. Something like that would be cool, IMHO.
 
Jack_in_the-Green;n9500651 said:
I think "random stuff" as you put it is overrated. In a game that is +100 hours which I believe would be the case, that random stuff gets old pretty soon. And is prone to manufacture some illogical cringeworthy situations. Like the devs in CDPR have told of moments when the "system" in Witcher 3 had decided that each house in some village should have a ham sandwhich and other stuff IN EACH trunk, while people were complaining of hunger. They had to rein in that stuff. So, it creates complications. I would believe that for a system of randomly generated stuff which work properly and doesnt violate the rules of the system, you should give it a lot of work... Id rather they concentrate in handcrafting little environment -quests like in "Witcher 3" or "Red Dead Redemption" (from which they "borrowed" that idea) that "feel" random.

>"Randomization had a few problems in the past therefore its a completely flawed system and CP2077 shouldn't use it"

It was already made in other games, so its possible. If open world doens't have any value then CDPR should go back to linear no open world games like Witcher 2, if you make a sandbox game you have to give attention to its open world aspects.

Some people like me like to explore a world that feels alive. It's not either story or gameplay godammit, we can have both.


Jack_in_the-Green;n9500651 said:
As long as the environment reacts to your decisions, or you can influence the environment/world, and it shows, Im happy.
For example, In Baldurs Gate2 there was a cool little thing: the city in which you had your hub was controlled by some sect of wizards who forbade the use of magic... if you had a random or quest related encounter with some enemies, and you used magic, the wizards would pop up, whoop your ass and throw you in jail (at night you could get away with it, but during the day and in public you got busted EVERY TIME). Then you had to decide if you should pay for bail, try to bribe the guards, or muscle your way out, each with its consequences. That whole repeat scenario was totally scripted, nothing was random, but as it was "triggered" by a possible random event, if fetl "fresh" and logical to the world. Something like that would be cool, IMHO.

Very nice. That's what I'm talking about, Baldurs Gate was great with those encounters.


 
Last edited:
walkingdarkly;n9505301 said:
Before other franchises, CDPR should do more with Cyberpunk like make an Isometric turn based combat game in the veins of the old Syndicate games...that game kicked so much butt.

Indeed, they should.

 
walkingdarkly;n9505301 said:
Before other franchises, CDPR should do more with Cyberpunk like make an Isometric turn based combat game in the veins of the old Syndicate games...that game kicked so much butt.
I'd buy to play a tactical x-com-o-syndicasque spin-off even if it was a smartphone game...
 
walkingdarkly;n9505301 said:
Before other franchises, CDPR should do more with Cyberpunk like make an Isometric turn based combat game in the veins of the old Syndicate games...that game kicked so much butt.
kofeiiniturpa;n9507781 said:
Indeed, they should.

Let's not beat about the bush here, this
Fallout 2 Combat
is what people are really talking about with classic turn-based isometric combat.

Let's be honest about this: Most people think this kind of combat sucks, and not without reason.
There's something that's not immersive or fun about taking 5 minutes to kill 4 bad guys, where "aim at head" "fire" "end turn" is the combat loop.

Classic style FPS games like Painkiller, or Strafe, are built clearly for that, marketed around that, by people passionate about those mechanics..
They exist for the sake of their mechanics.
There are plenty of RPG's built in this style for exactly that reason.

But to say a game that isn't designed to be purposely old school "should" be just doesn't have any reasoning behind it.
Individual preference, which may or may not be of the minority view, is not a real reason.
Neither is an opinion of "real time combat is too common" or "there are to many games with that combat system already."

To say that game based of PnP should be turn based is like saying it should also be text-based, it's wrong to hold progression back because of nostalgia.
And yes, when you take something that most people wouldn't like, and replace it with something that most people do like, that is progression.
I might not like it, I might not be in the majority, but I acknowledge it.

And no, there's no inherent reason why a video-games needs to match exactly a PnP, if that were the case, then they could just say "get the paperback copy" and save everyone the bother.

I think it's inherently understood about adaptions from different mediums or style of mediums that the point is to take the strengths of each, and leave the weaknesses at the door.
Some things are either "Coke or Pepsi" preferences and then some other things are favored over the other by a factor of 10 to 1, and not without reason.
It is worth discussing these things when we are talking about critical gameplay loops, because some people believe they are refined for wishing to cling to the game mechanics around the MS-DOS period.



 
metalmaniac21;n9507861 said:
I'd buy to play a tactical x-com-o-syndicasque spin-off even if it was a smartphone game...

I'd imagine smart-phones would be a prime target for this type of gameplay.
The benefit of turn-based gameplay not being dependent on reaction time and frame rate is notably of benefit with the hardware-limited and input-limited nature of smartphones.
 
NukeTheMoon;n9508081 said:
Let's not beat about the bush here, this
*snip*

Let's not beat around the bush here, this
Z7HeRxU.png
is what you really mean.


I did not mean Fallout 2 combat, I meant Syndicate combat so would you kindly don't "put words in my mouth" and try to claim I'm saying something I am not saying. And from your wall of text you did not fully comprehend what I wrote, you missed the key words "DO MORE", meaning do more with the Cyberpunk IP while they have the license like make an old school style game in the vein of the original Syndicate game, which was as close to a real Cyberpunk 2020 as we could get back then. No where in my short post did I say, "Make 2077 and old school turn based rpg!" or "CDPR better make this exactly like the pnp!". I also didn't say anything about 2077's combat or the other stuff you ranted about, not sure where you got any of that from my short wish of CDPR making a spinoff Cyberpunk game in the vein of a classic old school Cyberpunk game. And there's nothing wrong with liking old school games, Shadowrun gotta a modern remake treatment with it's last PC game that kept it in the vein of the old SNES games but updated a lot of stuff and it did very well. I did not say anywhere that they should make a Cyberpunk game be 1/1 like Syndicate, I said they should make it like Syndicate which would allude to it being a modern game in the style of Syndicate. And why the hate for old school games? If it wasn't for those old school games we wouldn't be in this forum here today.
 
NukeTheMoon;n9508081 said:
And no, there's no inherent reason why a video-games needs to match exactly a PnP, if that were the case, then they could just say "get the paperback copy" and save everyone the bother.


Well, except you need other people with PnP and you don't with CRPG. Huge difference and one of the reasons I like CRPG, because WAAAAAAAAAAAAY less organization required.

Also, adaptations often miss important points from the source material that they are based on. They are generally worse. Even the good ones lack the magic of the original.

Hewing as close to the original as you can is generally a good idea, in my media experience.

That said, CDPR writers and game designers are pretty good at what they do and I have high hopes they capture the PnP spirit.
 
NukeTheMoon;n9508081 said:
Let's not beat about the bush here, this Fallout 2 Combat is what people are really talking about with classic turn-based isometric combat.

I don't think so. That sounds like just you setting the stage for an easy argument against 20-year-old gamedesign. "Oh, look at how clumsy is that! Most people hate it, and with a reason. Hate, I tell you!" and who would disagree aside from fans of that particular game and gametype, it's a well known fact already. If I or (or anyone) would use that as a crowned example of what to strive for, very few would listen.

Walkingdarkly was mistaken about Syndicate since it does not have turnbased combat, but I agreed with the concept of the idea not with any specific example.

But yeah, turnbased sucks, it's just Fallout 2 mimicry anyway. I can't bother arguing that further right now, the idea seems to be too deeply rooted inside gamers today that that's the crux of it. I mean, how to explain a concept in few words when the audience has such a strong word to image association imprinted in their minds that the matter at hand always comes back to it.

This is where all the fun is anyway, so why talk about anything else (that's quite likely close to what combat in CP2077 will be too):

 
Last edited:
Top Bottom