Even if i consider cp2077 a rpg (mechanically weak but rpg) i have a problem with the approach of "players can do their own roleplaying" to justify this or other games as rpgs.
Take Dishonored as example : you can roleplay based on how you approach your accomplish your target, the world is reactive to your actions,npcs react to your actions and you have branching of the story... i would not qualify Dishonored as a RPG-although is a great game on its own-.
And I understand that sentiment. To an extend I also share it.
Specifically with the more impactful choices, they should be acknowledged and have narratively diverging directions.
However I draw a line (rationally) where I no longer require that when I happened to have dealt with insignificant NPC nr2 on the corner of the street.
Also, and this one is more subtle I think, it also depends a bit on how much of a divergence the narrative takes you.
Sometimes a choice may seem more meaningful/impactful compared to how the narrative may unfold as a result.
As you say CP77 could be classified an RPG simple enough. Yes, it walks some fine corners, hence the discussion. But it could have been worse.
I think the biggest issue for CP77 specifically is that even more was expected and perhaps also in larger ways.
CP77 could as such be viewed as 'giving the barebone baseline, but inside the spec'
However your breakdown following also reverts back around to what I was saying prior as well.
It seems to me that the common conception is that people feel like the game should actively acknowledge that you made a choice and that the path should diverge narratively. Maybe because a large amount of players arent going too deep into the roleplay aspect by their own choice, but rather want the game to force it based on points were such choice should be made.
Yep, that's what I was getting at. I suspect it may be because past games frequently provided this with their narrative choices. Gamers have been... conditioned to look for it. If it's not there or done differently criticism and disappointment are likely to follow.
Personally, I don't take issue with either approach as a concept. I can enjoy both. Where I get lost with CP is when, where and how it applies them.
A good example here would be the choices/consequences involving Fingers. Punch him in his pretty face and no shop. Exhibit heroic restraint, keep your hands to yourself and you get his shop. The concern is access to this shop doesn't carry enough importance. It's confusing why the game would provide this option when it's not important. Doing so defeats the entire point of the concept.
The same could be said for The Pickup quest. A great deal of work had to go into crafting this particular quest. Yet, the consequences have minimal importance for the overall narrative. As soon as they're realized they get passed over like mere stepping stones. The first time I observed this it created a bitter taste. Putting all the time, effort and resources into this quest to then cut it off this way. It seemed like a waste.
Then I ponder the conversation with Evelyn involving a possible double-cross of Dex. This goes nowhere. There is follow-up dialogue where Dex probes (and clearly knows it happened) but not much else. I couldn't help but question the purpose here. Why lay out this setup if it's not used further? At best it served to shed further light on the setting and circumstances. It could have been so much more.
Yep, that's what I was getting at. I suspect it may be because past games frequently provided this with their narrative choices. Gamers have been... conditioned to look for it. If it's not there or done differently criticism and disappointment are likely to follow.
Personally, I don't take issue with either approach as a concept. I can enjoy both. Where I get lost with CP is when, where and how it applies them.
I have to wonder what was supposed to be here. CP77 has all the hallmarks of an idea that started, but never got a potential followup.
I will use your stated examples to highligh some of that.
A good example here would be the choices/consequences involving Fingers. Punch him in his pretty face and no shop. Exhibit heroic restraint, keep your hands to yourself and you get his shop. The concern is access to this shop doesn't carry enough importance. It's confusing why the game would provide this option when it's not important. Doing so defeats the entire point of the concept.
Personally I dont think I ever done a playthrough where I could actually visit Fingers' shop afterwards, so I don't know what he's got to give you.
However I would like it if they were things that were unique on him. Some examples could be: he gets you stuff for low prices, or he has some unique mods which other simply wont deal in.
Again, I can't say what it may give you when you "show restarint" but I'm OK with that its not some world changing fact.
The same could be said for The Pickup quest. A great deal of work had to go into crafting this particular quest. Yet, the consequences have minimal importance for the overall narrative. As soon as they're realized they get passed over like mere stepping stones. The first time I observed this it created a bitter taste. Putting all the time, effort and resources into this quest to then cut it off this way. It seemed like a waste.
The pickup ... this was the quest where you meet with the Maelstrom for the flathead right?
To be honest I actually liked how it was executed (and completed with the Heist)
I'm perfectly ok with some choices only having an effect for the moment (or immediate duration). Not every choice has to wrinkle through the entirety of the story and be acknowledged as some lifechanging point-in-time.
However in this setup in articular, there is SOOOO much potential for various branching that it feels like it lacks options.
What that quest highlights most for me, is that a "simple" quest can be a basis for a very unique and branching junction. CDPR kinda overdid it with this quest to be honest. However the debate on what The Heist could have been for the CP story... we there porbably a myriad of topics.
And if I may view your perspective in this light, then yes I agree. Eventhough I don't have much of an issue with it by itself.
Then I ponder the conversation with Evelyn involving a possible double-cross of Dex. This goes nowhere. There is follow-up dialogue where Dex probes (and clearly knows it happened) but not much else. I couldn't help but question the purpose here. Why lay out this setup if it's not used further? At best it served to shed further light on the setting and circumstances. It could have been so much more.
This is a quest I define literally as "setup, but unfinished" and I genuinely think CDPR either forgot or didn't have the proper amount of time to incorporate the 'what if you side with Evelyn'. Because I can see the game continuing on in a very different way from here on out.
I was also very confused and subsequentially disappointed I couldn't just kill (or doublecross) Dex and take Evelyn up on the offer, but the ramifications of chosing that could very well be very large for the remainder of the game.
All I can hope for is that in a future update this aspect is deepened in some DLC/expo or whatever.
The same thing with the Melissa Rory part in Jingjuy store or the fabeled Militech affiliation via Meredith.
In general I can therefore say I largely agree with the sentiment that many setups to branching were created, but only few are followed up in a meaningful way. And as said, all I can hope for is that its something that may yet arrive at some point in time.
It definately would be a shame to have such neat setups that can only be completed into a resolution in a game of "what if".
Then I ponder the conversation with Evelyn involving a possible double-cross of Dex. This goes nowhere. There is follow-up dialogue where Dex probes (and clearly knows it happened) but not much else. I couldn't help but question the purpose here. Why lay out this setup if it's not used further? At best it served to shed further light on the setting and circumstances. It could have been so much more.
Just my impression about that dialogues with Evy and Dex. It's just there to reinforce the feeling that almost everyone is trying to betray everyone in Night City. And no matter how outspoken and trustworthy you are to Dex, when it comes to "saving his ass," that doesn't matter anymore (for most people)
The same could be said for The Pickup quest. A great deal of work had to go into crafting this particular quest. Yet, the consequences have minimal importance for the overall narrative. As soon as they're realized they get passed over like mere stepping stones. The first time I observed this it created a bitter taste. Putting all the time, effort and resources into this quest to then cut it off this way. It seemed like a waste.
For "The Pickup", in my opinion, it's like the whole Bloody Baron questline in TW3. There are choices, but do these choices matter in the main questline/world after finish it ?
Not really once you leave for Novigrad. There are some changes in the city if you come back or I think also during the fight with the Ladies Of The Wood, but that's all. A little bit like if it's Royce, Brick or Patricia who welcome you in the Totantez, it's not really "important".
Just my impression about that dialogues with Evy and Dex. It's just there to reinforce the feeling that almost everyone is trying to betray everyone in Night City. And no matter how outspoken and trustworthy you are to Dex, when it comes to "saving his ass," that doesn't matter anymore (for most people)
For "The Pickup", in my opinion, it's like the whole Bloody Baron questline in TW3. There are choices, but do these choices matter in the main questline/world after finish it ?
Not really once you leave for Novigrad. There are some changes in the city if you come back or I think also during the fight with the Ladies Of The Wood, but that's all. A little bit like if it's Royce, Brick or Patricia who welcome you in the Totantez, it's not really "important".
The difference is Bloody Baron went above and beyond at grabbing and keeping my attention throughout the entirety of the quest. Attachments were made to the characters through interactions with them. It left a lasting mark. The quest-line had a stake in the game, so to speak.
I cannot make this claim for The Pickup. Structurally it's a well put together quest. Content wise it failed in both areas. The characters encountered during the quest-line felt like random cogs in the Night City Machine. Nothing more or less. The task was to pick up the Spider Bot to then move on to the Heist and beyond. Virtually everything in between was an obstacle course to navigate.
Even if i consider cp2077 a rpg (mechanically weak but rpg) i have a problem with the approach of "players can do their own roleplaying" to justify this or other games as rpgs.
Take Dishonored as example : you can roleplay based on how you approach your accomplish your target, the world is reactive to your actions,npcs react to your actions and you have branching of the story... i would not qualify Dishonored as a RPG-although is a great game on its own-.
I would classify Dishonored as an Immersive Sim, I've been making the same argument towards Cyberpunk, albeit heavier on the RPG mechanics.
I play both games the same way, what differentiates the two besides the actual roles you can play in the games - of which are predominantly two, combatant, non-combatant - is the narrative approach and the skill checks in both combat (levels) and environment as well as in dialogue (which can also be altered by previous dialogue options as well to lead to different outcomes or interactions).
Now the questions is, do you classify Deus Ex: Human Revolution or Mankind Divided as RPG's, if so, why, if not, why?
I would also clasify Dishonored as immersive sim, but for Cyberpunk I cannot agree outside Gigs and NCPD jobs.
Quests are too heavily scripted and linear to qualify (in my opinion). RPG mechanics actually is a funny thing, the more you tend towards an immersive sim the less RPG mechanics you can have because you close your avenues in terms of systems interactions...
For example lockpicking normally in terms of RPG mechanics is a certain skill + bonuses + rng (or not) against a threshold, in an immersive sim lockpicking can be a skill but will not block you from opening a lock -it might take longer time, or more tools like Deus Ex 1, or locks can only be opened if you found a key via exploration without any character skill at all-
I do consider them RPGs, not that much immersive sims (as far as I remember playing a certain playstyle provides bigger rewards than others-XP-... this is opposed to an "objective and exploration" based reward)... but its a topic on its own in some forums.
Yep, that's what I was getting at. I suspect it may be because past games frequently provided this with their narrative choices. Gamers have been... conditioned to look for it. If it's not there or done differently criticism and disappointment are likely to follow.
Personally, I don't take issue with either approach as a concept. I can enjoy both. Where I get lost with CP is when, where and how it applies them.
A good example here would be the choices/consequences involving Fingers. Punch him in his pretty face and no shop. Exhibit heroic restraint, keep your hands to yourself and you get his shop. The concern is access to this shop doesn't carry enough importance. It's confusing why the game would provide this option when it's not important. Doing so defeats the entire point of the concept.
Yes and no, this is the type of roleplay I was speaking of, I've played 4 different characters that all felt like different people precisely due to these kinds of interactions during dialogue.
Don't get me wrong, it would have been amazing for it to surmount to something more substantial, but I still enjoyed what I got, perhaps I was in the right mindset for it to work on me the way it did.
I like role playing in role playing games, what can I say...
Very similar to my Mass Effect Maleshep and Femshep approaches, similar outcomes through different dialogue options that surmounted to jack squat in the end, but gave a nice flavor to the two characters.
In a way, Cyberpunk could have greatly benefitted from dialogue options that were affected by attire, cyberware and charisma skill checks along side general knowledge checks by completing side quests that reveal information about the current ongoing quest.
Now that would have been amazing... and perhaps what people were expecting to begin with.
The same could be said for The Pickup quest. A great deal of work had to go into crafting this particular quest. Yet, the consequences have minimal importance for the overall narrative. As soon as they're realized they get passed over like mere stepping stones. The first time I observed this it created a bitter taste. Putting all the time, effort and resources into this quest to then cut it off this way. It seemed like a waste.
I have a different perspective on this, it could be total fabrication by my overactive imagination but the prologue narrative follows a similar pattern to the main narrative which could have been intentional.
Meet Dex, get three paths to follow with a few branches peppered in to lead to a few different outcomes based on your interaction with the three paths (Speak to Meredith, Speak to Evelyn, Deal With Maelstrom) then stuff happens, V gets to start over, gets offered three paths to interact with and get different outcomes in the end depending on the interactions with those three paths (Voodoo Boys, Takemura, Panam), it's like it's been preordained, foreshadowing etc.
Then I ponder the conversation with Evelyn involving a possible double-cross of Dex. This goes nowhere. There is follow-up dialogue where Dex probes (and clearly knows it happened) but not much else. I couldn't help but question the purpose here. Why lay out this setup if it's not used further? At best it served to shed further light on the setting and circumstances. It could have been so much more.
And this could be explained by the balance shifting in the narrative, pre heist matters are water under the bridge, V's and co's lives change drastically to the point where stuff like that does not matter anymore, to me it added gravitas to the whole thing, like how the stuff that I as V found important pre-heist came crumbling down as reality unfolded and shifted beneath V's perception.
Like I said, intentional or not, it worked pretty well for me, I've managed to get into the roles that I created for the different V's.
But just as before, there could be more to this, so many little things expanded upon to make things even better and create the ''storm in a glass'' effect for V's predicament whilst still emphasizing on player agency.
Like, say, you do betray Dex and phone Ev while in front of No Tell Motel, she doesn't pick up and you have no other option but to confront Dex, or Ev does pick up, she agrees to meet in private and Dex gets there first confronts Ev ( ultimately getting rid of her just the same as it happens in the game but Dex is involved by selling her out to the Voodoo boys) and then deals with V leading to the same outcome.
Creates this illusion that Dex is an unstoppable force while retaining the impression that the player still had a choice in the matter.
Which is what RPG videogame narratives are all about.
I would also clasify Dishonored as immersive sim, but for Cyberpunk I cannot agree outside Gigs and NCPD jobs.
Quests are too heavily scripted and linear to qualify (in my opinion). RPG mechanics actually is a funny thing, the more you tend towards an immersive sim the less RPG mechanics you can have because you close your avenues in terms of systems interactions...
For example lockpicking normally in terms of RPG mechanics is a certain skill + bonuses + rng (or not) against a threshold, in an immersive sim lockpicking can be a skill but will not block you from opening a lock -it might take longer time, or more tools like Deus Ex 1, or locks can only be opened if you found a key via exploration without any character skill at all-
But aren't those still present in RPG's (like hidden keys for locks that are too high'a level, or mechanics to bypass the skill checks like the skeleton key)?
This is the blurry line right here because games like System Shock, Arx Fatalis and Deus Ex 1 all have all these elements interwoven into the game which are also present in games commonly associated as RPGs like Baldur's Gate and Neverwinter Nights 2.
Most side paths are blocked by some sort of skill check, similar to Cyberpunk (even in main missions, fair enough, I agree some are too scripted but they still allow you to tackle them with some sort of freedom by interacting with the environment and the systems to create different paths than just shooting through).
I do consider them RPGs, not that much immersive sims (as far as I remember playing a certain playstyle provides bigger rewards than others-XP-... this is opposed to an "objective and exploration" based reward)... but its a topic on its own in some forums.
But aren't those still present in RPG's (like hidden keys for locks that are too high'a level, or mechanics to bypass the skill checks like the skeleton key)?
Well, i would say that if the lockpick is "quest critical" you cannot block the player so typically you will offer other ways to open it: pickpocket it,kill the owner,seduce him/her,bribe intimidate... basically ways that emphasize your character build. And if not critical, you might miss it (loot of a rogue comes from this,loot from a fighter comes from kills). But there are n-thousand RPGs and we can find all the exceptions (Arcanum was quite good:you cannot lockpick-->break it!,although you will damage your weapons).
This is the blurry line right here because games like System Shock, Arx Fatalis and Deus Ex 1 all have all these elements interwoven into the game which are also present in games commonly associated as RPGs like Baldur's Gate and Neverwinter Nights 2.
Most side paths are blocked by some sort of skill check, similar to Cyberpunk (even in main missions, fair enough, I agree some are too scripted but they still allow you to tackle them with some sort of freedom by interacting with the environment and the systems to create different paths than just shooting through).
It's been a while since the game was released, but I still get the feeling that the developers added the dialogue system to Cyberpunk at the last minute. I honestly don't know how else to explain such a regression compared to previous CDPR titles.
With the exception of a couple of quests, the dialog system in Cyberpunk has literally turned into a "press the button to continue the conversation". Characters don't care what V says. You can be rude to Panam, River, or Judy in every dialogue and they'll still fall in love with you if you complete their quests.
It's the same with Johnny. Why do you need a fake relationship bar if only one dialogue in the oil field plays a role in your relathionships?
Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but in the Witcher series, all the dialogues with a timer put the player in front of a real decision. And in Cyberpunk this concept turned into another illusion of choice. Why?
I admire the Pick Up quest in Cyberpunk. But I can't get over the fact that the designers of that quest thought the other quests were equal in quality.
And I'm not even talking now about the fact that choices and consequences were in every Witcher 3 quests - even in simple Witcher contracts.
And the fact that every quest NPC had post-quest behavior depending on what choice the player made. None of this is present in Cyberpunk. River's nephews will still be staring at the wall in the room even a week after the quest is over.
And I don't think these complaints are stupid. It seems normal to me to expect that developers at least maintain their own standards in a new game of the same genre. After all, it was CDPR who started the Cyberpunk marketing campaign with the Pick Up quest and the push for choices and consequences. They could have said that this time they decided to make a more linear adventure.
I'm happy for the people who enjoyed the game. But it saddens me that with each new satisfied player, the chances that the developers will improve the dialogue system and quests in the story DLC are decreasing.
It's been a while since the game was released, but I still get the feeling that the developers added the dialogue system to Cyberpunk at the last minute. I honestly don't know how else to explain such a regression compared to previous CDPR titles.
With the exception of a couple of quests, the dialog system in Cyberpunk has literally turned into a "press the button to continue the conversation". Characters don't care what V says. You can be rude to Panam, River, or Judy in every dialogue and they'll still fall in love with you if you complete their quests.
It's the same with Johnny. Why do you need a fake relationship bar if only one dialogue in the oil field plays a role in your relathionships?
And you do get different lines of dialogue all acted and animated with variations of the dialogue based on how you engage in it (tonality wise, it's important believe it or not).
Say, you have information from another quest, or you chose an option of dialogue first, it changes what options you get next etc.
EDIT:
I forgot to mention that depending on your choices in dialogue you can completely ruin the relationship with both, locking you out of both endings regardless of the dialogue you chose later on.
For example, I was against Johnny all the way through then chose the ''correct'' dialogue at the oil field and I never got offered to do Johnny's side quest (which is required, you need to take Rogue out) and I never got that respective ending, nor Rogue's.
Same with Panam, depending on what you chose you can get completely locked out of her ending, she will remove you from her contacts.
The only ending I had available for this character was The Devil or Suicide, even though I completed all the quests available.
Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but in the Witcher series, all the dialogues with a timer put the player in front of a real decision. And in Cyberpunk this concept turned into another illusion of choice. Why?
I admire the Pick Up quest in Cyberpunk. But I can't get over the fact that the designers of that quest thought the other quests were equal in quality.
And I'm not even talking now about the fact that choices and consequences were in every Witcher 3 quests - even in simple Witcher contracts.
And the fact that every quest NPC had post-quest behavior depending on what choice the player made. None of this is present in Cyberpunk. River's nephews will still be staring at the wall in the room even a week after the quest is over.
And I don't think these complaints are stupid. It seems normal to me to expect that developers at least maintain their own standards in a new game of the same genre. After all, it was CDPR who started the Cyberpunk marketing campaign with the Pick Up quest and the push for choices and consequences. They could have said that this time they decided to make a more linear adventure.
They did meet them, and it's better in a lot of ways, this kind of complaining is becoming old now, has no basis in reality, there are actual problems with the game that get overlooked because people keep using this exact template pulled off reddit or that silly youtube video to complain about fictitious stuff that someone else said was true but never verified.
I'm happy for the people who enjoyed the game. But it saddens me that with each new satisfied player, the chances that the developers will improve the dialogue system and quests in the story DLC are decreasing.
And this could be explained by the balance shifting in the narrative, pre heist matters are water under the bridge, V's and co's lives change drastically to the point where stuff like that does not matter anymore, to me it added gravitas to the whole thing, like how the stuff that I as V found important pre-heist came crumbling down as reality unfolded and shifted beneath V's perception.
It's a distinct possibliity. The narrative has to go here or there and earlier choices and consequences need to be dropped to do it. My question is why would the game place itself in this position in the first place?
The added gravitas explanation could make sense. It's questionable whether V's world crumbling around them needed assistance though. Furthermore, there are many ways to get there if it did need help. It could have been done without dropping earlier content like a bag of rocks.
The purpose of choices and consequences in a RPG narrative is to provide a greater range to define or express the character. It provides more room to "roleplay". A big component here is the impact of these choices. One way to increase this impact is to make them carry further throughout the game.
Bringing up those examples was in part for this reason. Opportunities existed to provide impactful choices in spades. Alas, few of them were leveraged. Even when they are leveraged they get tossed aside too easily. For others the consequences were largely unimportant. There are exceptions but they're few and far between. Many of those were reduced down to simple content unlocks.
No, in Mass Effect the characters react to what Shepard says. You can't make a character fall in love with you just by doing his quest - you have to choose appropriate lines. It was the same in The Witcher. The dialogue system influenced the characters' attitudes towards you.
That's not the case in Cyberpunk. And this wasn't expected even by the writers of the guides, who wrote a bunch of "you have to hug Panam in front of the fire and say you're not here for the money to make the romance progress" type stuff. But in the end it's wrong. You just have to do her quests. The dialogue system doesn't play a role in the relationship with the characters.
How do you do that? I honestly tried and it didn't work. I was rude to Panam in every dialogue, I ignored her texts, I denied her revenge and just did her quests. She ended up falling in love with V.
To access Panam's ending, you just have to complete her quests, and it makes absolutely no difference what you tell her in the process. The game does not provide a way to complete her quests, but not to access her ending because V was rude to her in the dialogues.
Same story with Silverhand. I shut him up in every dialog and he still says he'll catch a bullet for V and offers to go see Rogue.
I even went on youtube and searched to see if there was any alternate dialogue with Johnny in Pacifica or with Panam in the Basilisk. Didn't find any evidence of it.
As far as I know, the gig characters get in the car and disappear from the game forever. And it doesn't matter if you let them live or die, you won't meet them in the game again and can't see what their deaths led to or talk to them if V let them survive.
About the big side quests: You can't come to River after his quest is over and see new scenes with his rescued nephew. Or get a new quest with his nephew's funeral if you failed that mission.
Or let's talk about the quest with Rogue, where she asks Johnny to take her to the movie theater. I was wondering, what would happen if I wrecked the car on the way? What new scenes and dialogue would that lead to? Would I get another quest that would eventually lead me to Kerry?
No, Rogue will just disappear in front of the player's eyes. And V will get a rude text. No new cutscene, no new dialogues.
Okay, but what happens if I go back to the Afterlife after that? Maybe Rogue and I can discuss this bad date?
No, she just sits there and says default lines. Ok, I took her to the movie theater, tried all the dialogue lines and they all lead to the same result. She left and I went to check on her at Afterlife. Again, she sits there and gives out default lines as if nothing happened before.
Like I said, unlike The Witcher 3, in Cyberpunk the quest characters have no post quest behavior depending on player choice. Or rather, they have no post quest behavior at all.
Once the quest ends, the characters are permanently frozen in one place or disappear from the game altogether in case of gigs.
No, in Mass Effect the characters react to what Shepard says. You can't make a character fall in love with you just by doing his quest - you have to choose appropriate lines. It was the same in The Witcher. The dialogue system influenced the characters' attitudes towards you.
Most of the dialogue choices lead to the same exact response, case in point every scene when Shepard and Co. are in front of the council arguing their case against Saren, but all three games have this issue, which is fine it gives Shepard flavor.
The first and second Witcher I would agree, it's way less present in the last game, the main narrative beats remain the same regardless of your choices, your choices are way more prevalent in the main side missions like the Baron and his Wife, Radovid's fate and the whole espionage etc.
That's not the case in Cyberpunk. And this wasn't expected even by the writers of the guides, who wrote a bunch of "you have to hug Panam in front of the fire and say you're not here for the money to make the romance progress" type stuff. But in the end it's wrong. You just have to do her quests. The dialogue system doesn't play a role in the relationship with the characters.
How do you do that? I honestly tried and it didn't work. I was rude to Panam in every dialogue, I ignored her texts, I denied her revenge and just did her quests. She ended up falling in love with V.
To access Panam's ending, you just have to complete her quests, and it makes absolutely no difference what you tell her in the process. The game does not provide a way to complete her quests, but not to access her ending because V was rude to her in the dialogues.
Same story with Silverhand. I shut him up in every dialog and he still says he'll catch a bullet for V and offers to go see Rogue.
I even went on youtube and searched to see if there was any alternate dialogue with Johnny in Pacifica or with Panam in the Basilisk. Didn't find any evidence of it.
I was against Johnny every step of the way all the way to Ebunike, after that Rogue wanted nothing to do with me, I went to Johnny's grave rejected his bullshit and that was the end of it, no Rogue option on the roof top.
I betrayed Panam to Saul she erased me from her contacts and Saul gifted me a car, bye bye Aldecaldos ending...
As far as I know, the gig characters get in the car and disappear from the game forever. And it doesn't matter if you let them live or die, you won't meet them in the game again and can't see what their deaths led to or talk to them if V let them survive.
About the big side quests: You can't come to River after his quest is over and see new scenes with his rescued nephew. Or get a new quest with his nephew's funeral if you failed that mission.
Or let's talk about the quest with Rogue, where she asks Johnny to take her to the movie theater. I was wondering, what would happen if I wrecked the car on the way? What new scenes and dialogue would that lead to? Would I get another quest that would eventually lead me to Kerry?
No, Rogue will just disappear in front of the player's eyes. And V will get a rude text. No new cutscene, no new dialogues.
Okay, but what happens if I go back to the Afterlife after that? Maybe Rogue and I can discuss this bad date?
No, she just sits there and says default lines. Ok, I took her to the movie theater, tried all the dialogue lines and they all lead to the same result. She left and I went to check on her at Afterlife. Again, she sits there and gives out default lines as if nothing happened before.
Like I said, unlike The Witcher 3, in Cyberpunk the quest characters have no post quest behavior depending on player choice. Or rather, they have no post quest behavior at all.
Once the quest ends, the characters are permanently frozen in one place or disappear from the game altogether in case of gigs.
Yeah it's a videogame suffering from videogamey things... what a shame, I really don't know what to say to this... yes I agree stuff like that is poorly designed, but for me frankly, I literally never cared even for a second, it never impacted my game experience because the focus for me was to have fun not to stare at the seams until they turned into canyons that I cannot ignore anymore...
I don't know, fella', when I play games I don't look for faults, I look for enjoyment if I can't find it I move on.
This is as far as I'm taking this argument as it's veering off topic.
I read the entire thread and vibe of some people and justification of a blatant degradation in terms of just CDPR quality of other games just kills me right away lol.
I don't want to get any replies containing "enjoyment" argument because is purely subjective and I cannot even pretend that I can provide counter-arguments. I enjoy things and games that are objectively bad, but it doesn't mean that I did not enjoy them despite being for most part undercooked, discarded and forgotten (well... I've backed a lot of kickstarter & indiegogo which turned out to be either scam or simply there's no release plan...).
Also I don't want to compare this game to any other. Why? Because it is counterproductive. In 1990 (first game which used mo-cap was released in 1994) Mo-cap wasn't available and it is. Photogrammetry was non-existent in gaming world I think the very first game using it was L.A Noire or one of the Assasin's Creed 1 to Revelations etc. The fact that no one done something before it doesn't mean it cannot be done. I don't recall any game that implemented dialogue system like in CP2077 which doesn't lock player in place dialogue begins. Lo and behold here we are ... Honestly I don't get the endless argument of "Well Bioware never done that so what you cannot expect anything more from other developers".
CDPR before the launch mocked every, single AAA developer and publisher for exactly what they've done with CP2077. They didn't deliver any groundbreaking technology (apart from camera system during dialogue... but dunno if that's groundbreaking), delivered unpolished game and now are selling excuses (just like EA or Ubisoft which they relentlessly mocked at every occasion) why XYZ cannot be done despite being done in their own other games.
other things that make my blood boil is the absolute state of discussion of "(c)RPG" elements which is confused with mechanics of a game. Me being a cheeky, rouge who joined rocker-boys (lol I wish... only things you can be in this game is merc & street kid for 80% of the game...) and changes the Night City's landscape, politics, people minds and environments by pulling the riffs strings, engaging in gigs related to bard (bc essentially rocker-boy is a rebranded bard from P&P RPGs) lifestyle <- That's (c)RPG element.
Mechanics would be ability to write (of course pre-scripted song and music after all it is computer game with every limitation) and perform, sing contract, influence politicians, p*ssing off corpo and being rouge as a side gig which would let me assassinate, plot and plan schemes behind scene. Another needed mechanic that would make that possible are stats (from standard, related to characters strength, to stats relating to world and main and side characters), weapons, armours.
CP2077 lacks in every aspect. Even Skyrim or GTA 5 Online is better at being (c)RPG than CP2077, which when you realise that you're no longer surprised why this game was "degraded" to action-adventure. It has more similarities with Uncharted than Dragon Age, Mass Effect, RDR2 & GTA (these 2 aren't even considered (c)RPG by their own creators) or any other game.
I guess after years I'm getting progressively more tired by reading excused not even made and put forward by devs themselves but gamers engaging in another case of post-purchase rationalisation. On the other case we've people like me experiencing buyer's remorse further reinforced by lies from PR and marketing department.
Btw. I apologise for my severe case of broken English and perfect display of dyslexia at work. Lesson for myself never write anything in second or third language while you're completely exhausted.
Also I don't want to compare this game to any other. Why? Because it is counterproductive. In 1990 (first game which used mo-cap was released in 1994) Mo-cap wasn't available and it is. Photogrammetry was non-existent in gaming world I think the very first game using it was L.A Noire or one of the Assasin's Creed 1 to Revelations etc. The fact that no one done something before it doesn't mean it cannot be done. I don't recall any game that implemented dialogue system like in CP2077 which doesn't lock player in place dialogue begins. Lo and behold here we are ... Honestly I don't get the endless argument of "Well Bioware never done that so what you cannot expect anything more from other developers".
The argument isn't that Bioware or whoever never done it before, the argument is that this game is being held up to some imaginary unachievable standard, that's the damned argument.
I get being frustrated, I am as well, I can't even play the damned thing at the moment since patch 1.5 so don't get me started.
CDPR before the launch mocked every, single AAA developer and publisher for exactly what they've done with CP2077. They didn't deliver any groundbreaking technology (apart from camera system during dialogue... but dunno if that's groundbreaking), delivered unpolished game and now are selling excuses (just like EA or Ubisoft which they relentlessly mocked at every occasion) why XYZ cannot be done despite being done in their own other games.
Jali is pretty ground breaking, the city infrastructure is practically never before seen, especially at this fidelity, amazing character detail in general and outstanding performances from every one of the actors (groundbreaking? no idea, does it have to be?), music and artistic design etc.
And another thing, why does it have to be groundbreaking?
Are we going back to the ''they lied'' argument?
It's nonsense.
Also CDPR was having a go (I wouldn't say they mocked anyone, that's your imagination talking there) at the other studios for bad practices, and they realized they failed big time hence why they offered extended refunds for everyone even though it was counterproductive for them (especially in relation to Sony).
CDPR are nowhere close to Acti, EA, Blizz, Rockstar and co., one bad release for which they owned up to is not enough to make them stoop to that level I'm afraid.
other things that make my blood boil is the absolute state of discussion of "(c)RPG" elements which is confused with mechanics of a game. Me being a cheeky, rouge who joined rocker-boys (lol I wish... only things you can be in this game is merc & street kid for 80% of the game...) and changes the Night City's landscape, politics, people minds and environments by pulling the riffs strings, engaging in gigs related to bard (bc essentially rocker-boy is a rebranded bard from P&P RPGs) lifestyle <- That's (c)RPG element.
Mechanics would be ability to write (of course pre-scripted song and music after all it is computer game with every limitation) and perform, sing contract, influence politicians, p*ssing off corpo and being rouge as a side gig which would let me assassinate, plot and plan schemes behind scene. Another needed mechanic that would make that possible are stats (from standard, related to characters strength, to stats relating to world and main and side characters), weapons, armours.
It's called Cyberpunk 2077, you're an edgerunner, the lifepaths are meant to be your character bio not a fully personalized story, even if you would have had rockerboy as a lifepath you would still be playing an edgerunner.
CP2077 lacks in every aspect. Even Skyrim or GTA 5 Online is better at being (c)RPG than CP2077, which when you realise that you're no longer surprised why this game was "degraded" to action-adventure. It has more similarities with Uncharted than Dragon Age, Mass Effect, RDR2 & GTA (these 2 aren't even considered (c)RPG by their own creators) or any other game.
I guess after years I'm getting progressively more tired by reading excused not even made and put forward by devs themselves but gamers engaging in another case of post-purchase rationalisation. On the other case we've people like me experiencing buyer's remorse further reinforced by lies from PR and marketing department.
I feel that you're referring to some of my posts here, those excuses are meant to be a different perspective, I have no buyers remorse, I've fully enjoyed the game until 1.5 where the performance just craps out and I cannot play.
I don't need to make excuses, I'm giving the perspective of someone who sees things differently than you, that is all.
No need to defend a product, that would be silly, I'm explaining how I've arrived to the conclusions that I have and what thought process allowed me to enjoy the experience.
Btw. I apologise for my severe case of broken English and perfect display of dyslexia at work. Lesson for myself never write anything in second or third language while you're completely exhausted.
I kinda think alot of people still are, alot was put on this game since it was CDPR and the hype. Ive managed too make my peace with it after alot of frustration. Hopefully the next game will be more too my taste but for now im sticking with the games i love instead. Sometimes it just doesnt turn out the way you hope i guess.
I kinda think alot of people still are, alot was put on this game since it was CDPR and the hype. Ive managed too make my peace with it after alot of frustration. Hopefully the next game will be more too my taste but for now im sticking with the games i love instead. Sometimes it just doesnt turn out the way you hope i guess.
You are correct, a million different people, a million different minds. And not everybody likes the same things.
What I find wondersome however, is that the frustration part against Cyberpunk goes up and beyond levels that seem unprecedented compared to any other game.
Maybe its just my imagination... But it feels like CP77 and CDPR make many people see red-rage where on accounts of other games and companies they go like: "eh, what did you expect its [insert companyname]"
However... At the end of the day its important that anyone does what they like/love for recreational activity. --> for gamers --> there's a very big and widespread selection of games around, by now there should be something for everyone. If CP77 isn't it, then something else will.
Perhaps sometimes it would also be best to just leave something alone rather than go on a fuss about it.
You are correct, a million different people, a million different minds. And not everybody likes the same things.
What I find wondersome however, is that the frustration part against Cyberpunk goes up and beyond levels that seem unprecedented compared to any other game.
Maybe its just my imagination... But it feels like CP77 and CDPR make many people see red-rage where on accounts of other games and companies they go like: "eh, what did you expect its [insert companyname]"
However... At the end of the day its important that anyone does what they like/love for recreational activity. --> for gamers --> there's a very big and widespread selection of games around, by now there should be something for everyone. If CP77 isn't it, then something else will.
Perhaps sometimes it would also be best to just leave something alone rather than go on a fuss about it.
True, i think a big part of it is that its CDPR. Also most people here complaining probably have the same problem i think i hade. You can see the potential.. It just feels frustrating at so menny points in the game where you can see how it could be. But like i said its just not for me, ill probably still play it at times but it just wont end up on my "best games list". I get the frustration tho.
Part of the problem (cdpr marketing aside), is that when a developer says "rpg" ...nobody knows what is gonna be. Will be TW3 (that for me is weaker than CP2077 in RPG MECHANICS-albeit might be a better game overall-) or will be Fallout New Vegas(put your favorite action RPG here) level of mechanics?. For example Bethesda said Starfield is gonna be more hardcore RPG experience...so Morrowind or Skyrim?... i have no clue of what they meant, till full review nobody can know(i only know that they hinted some persuasion mini-game based on Oblivion...which already says that it will not be a game for me).
