Will CDPR ever respond to lack of RPG Mechanics and lack of choices?

[exxxed]

enlighten me. How many quests are there that actually have multiple endings that actually differ from each other in outcome and not just in tone? A handful at best.
Bascially, the only differences I see in most quests is: you can either do the quest or refuse to do the quest or fail the quest. Failing or refusing the quest locks you out of the complete rest of the quest chain, which is not really a choice, it just makes the game shorter.

The endings are also mostly the same and are determined by some random decision on a rooftop. They don't even make sense if you look at them seperately. E.g., why do you have to leave NC in the Aldecaldo ending just beacuse you asked for their help? My V was absolutely against their way of life, repeated this time and time again and still left NC with them in the end without me having any input. The Aldecaldos owed V a favor they repaid by helping him get into Arasaka HQ. This should not automatically mean that V has to join them and become a tarmac rat. So much for choices. The other endings have similar issues. The endings disregard all the "choices"Imade during the game regarding V's personality and railroad you into an ending based on ONE decision that should only be about who you want to fight with, not how you want to spend the rest of your short life.
The "choices" are superficial.

Compared to what? Fallout New Vegas? Divinity Original Sin? Planescape? Pillars? Wasteland?

What are you comparing these things to?

What were you expecting from the people that made The Witcher?

I'd wager the large majority of side quests have different endings depending on your choices or what you've done prior to them (Jotaro and Woodman, River and The Farm, Royce/Brick and Totentanz, Fingers and Wakako/Judy, Judy and Maiko, Panam and Saul/Aldecaldos, Rogue and Johnny etc.) heck the large majority of assassination quests have different endings and approaches depending on your lifepath, some main missions as well (Arasaka ending and Corpo fits like a glove).

Honestly how many different endings does Mass Effect have, Dragon Age, Deus Ex, Vampire: The Masquerade - Bloodlines, Skyrim, Fallout etc. that are not just dialogue flavored or a brief epilogue that's mostly hits the same story beats?

What are we even talking about at this point, this game clearly isn't what you expected, but it also doesn't clearly invalidate what it does either.

I find the story amazing, I find the dialogue choices to allow me enough freedom to shape my V in quite a few ways that I find compelling without undermining what the story is trying to achieve and/or the emotional highs and lows of the plot.

Either way I think we can agree to disagree.

 

[hulkman2456]

Honestly how many different endings does Mass Effect have, Dragon Age, Deus Ex, Vampire: The Masquerade - Bloodlines, Skyrim, Fallout etc. that are not just dialogue flavored or a brief epilogue that's mostly hits the same story beats?

ME2's ending gave a more choice ending. Rather than a visual ending for the outcomes. They broke it into sections. One: Did the person select the correct character. Two: Did the person choose all the correct answers through the whole game. Whatever amount you did. That determined who lived and died. This is than carried over to the following game. If you rushed in to the final mission. The ship was immediately damaged. They cut out the shield defense part. If you picked all the wrong answers and wrong people. Everyone, but key characters died.

It gave more visual outcomes and affecting choices to the player. They of course all funnel into the same ending type. But you controlled the fate of the characters. CP could have done this. Remember how someone has to die to Smasher. And depending on the ending, it's different. Why isn't there a option to have your romance be that placeholder. Why isn't there a option to train them, if need be. And if you get their training or love high enough. They survive, and no one dies. Why can't we save Rouge or Saul in that ending. The default endings would need a additonal scene. Or are not even affected by them living. Rogue surviving. She's badly injurried. But she chooses to have you be apart of Afterlife. You are running it, for the time being.

Than you have the LP's. This is a much more integrated aspect of the character. VS the good and bad system ME used. If you have a 20 minute customized startup of the game. I expected a customized ending to the 6 ending choices. Based around the personality you picked through the game, and LP. There where things they could have done. That would fit into each of the endings. That still honored the requirements of V having 6 months to death. And if you choose a personality that conflicts with an ending. The ending stock ending doesn't play at all. You solely focus on the phone calls to wrap up the choices.

It's more work, of course. But they didn't want to do it. Than just don't do the LP's in the first place. I wouldn't have cared. Pick the obvious favored one, Street Kid, and that's it.

 

[exxxed]

ME2's ending gave a more choice ending. Rather than a visual ending for the outcomes. They broke it into sections. One: Did the person select the correct character. Two: Did the person choose all the correct answers through the whole game. Whatever amount you did. That determined who lived and died. This is than carried over to the following game. If you rushed in to the final mission. The ship was immediately damaged. They cut out the shield defense part. If you picked all the wrong answers and wrong people. Everyone, but key characters died.

I fully agree with the rest of your post, but this here is the thing that I take issue with.

Besides asset swaps it doesn't really do anything in the grand scheme of things, so in reality ME2 has two endings, Shepard lives or Shepard dies.

All the other characters get replaced by clones as a result of them dying, I especially hate that with the Council Members and choosing Anderson vs Udina. Absolutely no impact what so ever.

Heck I'd say the only real choices are regarding the Quarians-Geth (Legion) and The Krogan Genophage (but again clones with Wrex and Wreav).

Illusion of choice.

Don't get me wrong, I love Mass Effect 2 and 3 even with them removing the actual RPG elements that made Mass Effect 1 special to me.

And the Suicide mission is one of a kind with it's fast paced high octane action and gripping set pieces, but ultimately it doesn't really accomplish anything in the long run.

And I could argue it's exactly the same in Cyberpunk, in ME2 you have to upgrade the ship and do companion sidemissions to get your desired ending, in Cyberpunk you have to do good in Johnny's eyes and do character side missions to get the desired outcome.

 

[hulkman2456]

Besides asset swaps it doesn't really do anything in the grand scheme of things, so in reality ME2 has two endings, Shepard lives or Shepard dies.

But this is the type of choice people want. People don't want massive changes that basically rewrite the game. That is not realistic. We just want more control. Each of the outcomes funnel to the same point, that is unavoidable. What this also does. Is opens up side missions. Take this example. Know how we get a choice to spare Sasquatch or Placide. If I was writing the story. If these outcomes where picked. This would enable two things. Placide is alive. He is now a option to be picked in the final mission. As a replacement for Romance/Saul/Rogue. You now have the option to let him die, or let him live.

This makes it a longer satisfying betrayal. Second If both are alive. You get a side mission where Sasquatch comes after you. In this mission. You tell her, you where duped by the VB's. This than opens you up to let them both die. Choose Sas to be your friend, or Placide to be your friend. These characters are than available to be used in the final mission.

If I could add more story elements. This would also be a mission that allows you to join the Animal Gang. I would design missions that would make a full Gang take over system for the game. I'm not changing the ending of the games all that much. What I'm doing. I'm making the game longer. By bringing in character and story.

That's what ME 2. did. The ending, and like you said the council choices are not much. But if you didn't have the option to befriend or Romance Jack in ME2. So that she does her job in the game. The games length is shorter. I'm opening content up that doesn't exist at all. A game can also be a puzzle. And the only time this happens is: Choose Takemura to die or not. Or Johnny's secret ending.

 

[exxxed]

But this is the type of choice people want. People don't want massive changes that basically rewrite the game. That is not realistic. We just want more control. Each of the outcomes funnel to the same point, that is unavoidable. What this also does. Is opens up side missions. Take this example. Know how we get a choice to spare Sasquatch or Placide. If I was writing the story. If these outcomes where picked. This would enable two things. Placide is alive. He is now a option to be picked in the final mission. As a replacement for Romance/Saul/Rogue. You now have the option to let him die, or let him live.

This makes it a longer satisfying betrayal. Second If both are alive. You get a side mission where Sasquatch comes after you. In this mission. You tell her, you where duped by the VB's. This than opens you up to let them both die. Choose Sas to be your friend, or Placide to be your friend. These characters are than available to be used in the final mission.

If I could add more story elements. This would also be a mission that allows you to join the Animal Gang. I would design missions that would make a full Gang take over system for the game. I'm not changing the ending of the games all that much. What I'm doing. I'm making the game longer. By bringing in character and story.

That's what ME 2. did. The ending, and like you said the council choices are not much. But if you didn't have the option to befriend or Romance Jack in ME2. So that she does her job in the game. The games length is shorter.

Yep, no argument there but I don't agree with asset swaps just for the sake of it, it's shallow and pointless especially if it messes with the continuity (like why do these new people filling up the shoes of characters you spent time with and shared your burdens with even care, why are they here and why should I care about them ).

I agree the whole Voodoo Boys and Netwatch was rushed, I really, REALLY, want more on that front, but it also foreshadows something greater for the future (Mr. Blue Eyes and the Peralez arc seems to be connected to Netwatch, Night Corp and double agents), as for the Voodoo Boys they could add more to Pacifica in DLC's.

We'll see.

Anyway you raised good points, hats off .

 

[ArgoZinzu]

Not quite, it had exactly the same tropes Cyberpunk has (played all three witcher games multiple times and compared to the first two witcher games, the third one has a distinctive lack of narrative choices with long lasting impact) and no amount of slideshows is going to remedy it.

Most of them were cosmetic changes, what exactly truly changed at the end of Bloody Baron quest line (which I'd compare to The Pickup in Cyberpunk). The baron disappears out of the picture regardless of choice and everything else is cosmetic. All your choices lead up to the same story beats, Wild Hunt appears in the exact same places all the set pieces are the same all the boss fights end up playing the same, the only difference is dialogue flavor and the three main endings.

Cyberpunk is the same, side quests have multiple endings, the dialogue changes based on your choices and some choices help or hinder you in the long run.

Depending on how you treat the characters determines what ending you get, sometimes regardless if you do their respective quest chain or not (didn't even know if you dismiss Johnny you get locked out of his Rogue ending and quest chains, same goes with Panam and your love interests that add flavor and minor changes to the ending just like in The Witcher 3).

I honestly think people aren't being fair to either games, it's unproductive to treat one like it's a God send and bash the other one at every turn when they're both suffering from the same problems (bugs and AI included).

Witcher did have branching story quest. Some choice had affects on who lived or die or if you get another side quest i found many in time.
Cyberpunk 2077 was promise to be a branching story where no one would get same out come and a active and realist world. There are only two times in the whole game where story branches and that barely has any affect at all
the ending really choice of who dies or if suicide 3 different ways
note i love both games with complete play through witcher 3 and more than 250 hrs in to cp77 i just feel this game does fail to even make over the line with the story.
ill stick around playing for while still perfecting stealth play
ill note this the story is just way to short also not even close to enough side content for map this size.
also some ai fixes are required gangs feel weak and not threat.
not enough guns or clothes
bad crafting system
heck the most dangerous area in the game is puppies and kittens when comes to threats

 

[exxxed]

Witcher did have branching story quest. Some choice had affects on who lived or die or if you get another side quest i found many in time.
Cyberpunk 2077 was promise to be a branching story where no one would get same out come and a active and realist world. There are only two times in the whole game where story branches and that barely has any affect at all
the ending really choice of who dies or if suicide 3 different ways
note i love both games with complete play through witcher 3 and more than 250 hrs in to cp77 i just feel this game does fail to even make over the line with the story.
ill stick around playing for while still perfecting stealth play
ill note this the story is just way to short also not even close to enough side content for map this size.
also some ai fixes are required gangs feel weak and not threat.
not enough guns or clothes
bad crafting system
heck the most dangerous area in the game is puppies and kittens when comes to threats

I never disagreed that the witcher has branching quests, that's silly.

The biggest difference in between the two are the type of story they try to tell.

While The Witcher is an amalgamation in between world politics and Geralt's personal life which still affects the world politics (The Lodge, Ard Skellig).

While on the other hand Cyberpunk focuses on a very personal story regarding V's relationship with Johnny so it focuses on their change in characters based on your choices (that expands into side characters as well).

I'm not arguing that it's not more streamlined and trying to tell a much more reserved and grounded story which might seem on rails, but there's a myriad of things that change based on how you tackle the game as well, the only thing is it's not as upfront about it, there's no fanfare.

 

[Fuse_00]

Cyberpunk 2077 is the Dragon Age 2 of this decade

Not quite so imo, Dragon Age 2 provided absolutely awful ugly generic world, but also good story and side quests, best in DA history, in my opinion.
Cyberpunk is visa versa, outstanding, beautiful city with no content in it, most of the quests are MMO grinding stuff.

DA2 is my favorite DA game, I've replayed it many times, because I truly love the story, characters and side quests, which are good developed and non linear.

At the same time, I see no reason for replaying Cyberpunk, it is beautiful, but empty and clunky, and on the top of it, absolutely linear.

 

[Ziffa]

Instead of making characters die in stupid way, they could at least gave the players the choice to do secondary quest to avoid that, T-Bug getting fried like she is a novice at hacking, maybe a sidequest to gather intel prior to the heist?

Eveleyn getting kidnapped, the doctor you met on River quest, the one that works with dreams and coma patient, could have saved her.

And so on, but killing characters in stupid ways it's better than investing time into properly developing some sort of attachment to it right?

 

[Geolas96]

I'm not making a comparison. I'm merely demonstrating that a game doesn't need to proffer infinite ways to complete a mission to please people. So holding CP2077s feet to the fire because they only offered you a mere 3 ways to complete a mission is kind of bogus. A lot of high profile AAA games don't offer you much in the way of player agency in the first place. The fact that CDP has with CP2077, in what is an open-world title is nothing to scoff about because very few developers even attempt that.

As for being scammed. I don't know about you, but I've clocked over 380 hours in CP2077 in a few playthroughs trying out different builds/approaches and loved everyone one of them. In terms of value proposition, I'm pretty happy with that, and I'm not done yet. Bugs are somewhat annoying at times, but not a dealbreaker and I look forward to the day when they are all squished, as well as updates and improvements to the core systems and more story-based DLC. In short: -

We're a good month past release at this juncture. If the games not for you that's unfortunate, but I sadly can't relate to your list of ongoing grievances. If I'm not enjoying a game, I don't camp out on the developer's forums to write lengthy diatribes as to why people who are enjoying it are wrong, I just find another game to play.

>So holding CP2077s feet to the fire because they only offered you a mere 3 ways to complete a mission is kind of bogus. A lot of high profile AAA games don't offer you much in the way of player agency in the first place.

Again, this isn't an argument. There are games which are masterpieces with only linear stories and without any choices, nobody is doubting that. The issue is that, again, Cyberpunk WAS advertised as a game where your choices "rippled through the story and the world" and that is simply not the case by a long shot.
What you are doing is essentialy like saying that if Cyberpunk released as a Super Mario esque Platforming Game, that would have been perfectly fine because there are platforming games that are really good. It doesnt really matter that there are other games which please players which do it this way or that way, the point is that Cyberpunk was advertised as something and people expected that. If I sold you a Ferrari and delivered a Mercedes and then told you "a lot of people like Mercedes" you'd still be pissed because you were advertised a bloody ferrari, and paid for a bloody ferrari, to make a very stupid comparison.

I personally would have not minded the story that much, if the gameplay was good, but that also is a bit of a mixed bag. I remember when I first picked up a Machete and thought it was really cool and fitting for a Nomad Character, only to realize that it barely has any animations, no finishing moves and me slightly slapping some dude on his wrist makes his head fly off, no matter where I hit him. And thats just the entire game for me so far. Everything feels cheap, unfinished, clunky and unresponsive with the only parts that are somewhat polished being what was shown in gameplay demos, the stuff that made it actually in, that is.
I'm glad you enjoy the game, but things like these just set a really shitty precedent in my opinion. Nothing they promised was impossible, and often already done or at least attempted by other Games that came beforehand. And its not that Im disappointed with what they delivered or expected more, they just didnt really deliver a lot at all. I personally just expected a solid RPG, which was reasonable because they did some really good RPGs beforehand. I would have understood people defending the state of this game if it was a solid RPG underneath, even if it wasn't a masterpiece, but it isn't.
No character customization, Cyberware doesn't really play a role to the degree it should with the lore and the skill trees are barebones. There's just nothing to really get excited about when it comes to level ups because all you're doing is boosting some stat that doesn't really affect gameplay apart from enemies dying faster. No cool new abilities, no cool new techniques or possibilities. But whatever.

To finish this, I personally believe had any other studio released this game, it would have gotten 5 to 6 out of 10 ratings and people would have probably torn it to shreds after that kind of marketing, with it being forgotten two months afterwards.

Again, glad you're enjoying it. I just dont think that some of this shit should be defended like this.

 

[ArgoZinzu]

I never disagreed that the witcher has branching quests, that's silly.

The biggest difference in between the two are the type of story they try to tell.

While The Witcher is an amalgamation in between world politics and Geralt's personal life which still affects the world politics (The Lodge, Ard Skellig).

While on the other hand Cyberpunk focuses on a very personal story regarding V's relationship with Johnny so it focuses on their change in characters based on your choices (that expands into side characters as well).

I'm not arguing that it's not more streamlined and trying to tell a much more reserved and grounded story which might seem on rails, but there's a myriad of things that change based on how you tackle the game as well, the only thing is it's not as upfront about it, there's no fanfare.

They had a great chance to build a truly open and branching story. I know they want the story personal between V and Johnny but it fails in many ways. Maybe its the way dialog is said. or actors not being able to play off each other.
Right now johnny is just boring and annoying. It would been nice to have more real choies that had big impacts like jackie lives or betraying dex or getting out plaza with out trgger alarms

 

[Ayinde_Palmer]

@Geolas96: appreciate the way you're hitting the head on most of the game's problems. I really don't get how so many people here are apparently happy they were lied to and served a mediocre product. If I wanted a Ubisoft game, I would have bought a Ubisoft game. (To be fair, the characters and worldbuilding are way better than in a Ubsioft product, but the rest...)



enlighten me. How many quests are there that actually have multiple endings that actually differ from each other in outcome and not just in tone? A handful at best.
Bascially, the only differences I see in most quests is: you can either do the quest or refuse to do the quest or fail the quest. Failing or refusing the quest locks you out of the complete rest of the quest chain, which is not really a choice, it just makes the game shorter.

The endings are also mostly the same and are determined by some random decision on a rooftop. They don't even make sense if you look at them seperately. E.g., why do you have to leave NC in the Aldecaldo ending just beacuse you asked for their help? My V was absolutely against their way of life, repeated this time and time again and still left NC with them in the end without me having any input. The Aldecaldos owed V a favor they repaid by helping him get into Arasaka HQ. This should not automatically mean that V has to join them and become a tarmac rat. So much for choices. The other endings have similar issues. The endings disregard all the "choices"Imade during the game regarding V's personality and railroad you into an ending based on ONE decision that should only be about who you want to fight with, not how you want to spend the rest of your short life.
The "choices" are superficial.

if you call people to come die to help you, and they make you a part of their family... yeah. I mean I get it, I was also like ehhhh.

And nah, they didnt really owe V a favor on the level of attacking arasaka. Saul told you they d only do this for family.



Point is you weren't really commiting that hard, But I can see why The aldecados thought you were down. Good news is they brought you back to before that decision so you can go for a different fate

There's the rogue ending, but that requires giving it up to Johnny. I gotta try the secret ending. I do think there should be an NC focused ending but V seems to have ignored making ties. Rogue pointed it out, V works solo. Most mercs have crews. V got no peops besides their romance partners,

 

[claudiu111]

When releasing such a broken and incomplete game, you will never answer. EA does not, same with Ubisoft and Activision. Anything you say can be used against you in the court of law. This is proof that CDPR is now up there with the greats.

 

[exxxed]

They had a great chance to build a truly open and branching story. I know they want the story personal between V and Johnny but it fails in many ways. Maybe its the way dialog is said. or actors not being able to play off each other.
Right now johnny is just boring and annoying. It would been nice to have more real choies that had big impacts like jackie lives or betraying dex or getting out plaza with out trgger alarms

I agree with the last part, and I do wish there were a few more defined paths depending on your life path (but the more I play the more I see what they were trying to achieve).

But I think V's relationship with Johnny and friends are really well done, with clear personality, ups and downs etc.

I think it was done really well, no one is perfect and Johnny especially is made to be abrasive.

 

[BottonMoon]

Probably not, they are happy with the game.

Not to mention they already have our money.

Single player game, they expect us to move on to something else after a few weeks.

 

[Grindders]

Not quite, it had exactly the same tropes Cyberpunk has

Witcher 3 vs Cyberpunk quest design

What happened to quest design in Cyberpunk 2077?

I can't believe not many people are discussing this. The Witcher 3 had great quest design. Almost all of the quests were logically connected and the developers constantly rewarded the player for improvisation with unique scenes and dialogues. For example, if you do few quests in Velen and then...

forums.cdprojektred.com

 

[limujin]

I have more optimism than many here. I just look at their past Witcher games and how much effort they put into it. This isn't EA we're talking about.

 

[exxxed]

Witcher 3 vs Cyberpunk quest design

What happened to quest design in Cyberpunk 2077?

I can't believe not many people are discussing this. The Witcher 3 had great quest design. Almost all of the quests were logically connected and the developers constantly rewarded the player for improvisation with unique scenes and dialogues. For example, if you do few quests in Velen and then...

forums.cdprojektred.com

I know, The Witcher is much more expansive in scope but that doesn't mean that they don't share the same tropes. It doesn't invalidate the fact that the same things exist in Cyberpunk as well, in fact there's a few things Cyberpunk does better.

There are quests which your choice isn't apparent and isn't determined by a binary choice at the end of the quest (case in point Claire, you have to follow a dialogue path to get your desired outcome, otherwise Claire does whatever she wants regardless of what you say at the end).

Props to you though a well written thread, I was actually reading The Witcher 3 fan wiki about story branches and it's impressive.

I myself am still discovering quests that interconnect in Cyberpunk and the effects of them, hope soon we'll get a similar fan wiki with Cyberpunk's narrative choices.

 

[EmpireMan]

The Witcher 3 was not mainstream. They went full mainstream with Cyberpunk - looter shooter, linear, first-person and guess what? It works!

The game is selling amazingly well. Better than Witcher. Bestseller everywhere.

The next one will be the same. Money talks.

Cyberpunk 2077's launch month sets digital sales record despite refunds

Digital gaming ended 2020 with a new record for highest monthly total revenue ever, with $12 billion in December, led b…

www.gamesindustry.biz

 

[Mentos3]

The Witcher 3 was not mainstream. They went full mainstream with Cyberpunk - looter shooter, linear, first-person and guess what? It works!

The game is selling amazingly well. Better than Witcher. Bestseller everywhere.

The success of Witcher 3 and the fact that they almost threw so much money in marketing like in dev. build the hype.

The next one will be the same.

Don't think so.