Will the game have children on the streets?

+
Am I the only one that remembers the 'there is no spoon' scene with that kid in the Matrix?

It's true that there are far fewer decent child actors/actresses than there are adult one, but there have been some fantastic ones.

But as previously stated, we can be fairly certain that CDPR will do a good job however this subject is dealt with.
 
You could set seaweed next to Keanu Reeves and its acting would appear brilliant by way of comparison.

The same could be said for house bricks, but that's not the point. My point was that there were key scenes in The Matrix that involved kids.
 
"There is no spoon."

BUT - those kids were hardly characters. As cool as the budding Ones were, they weren't characters, they were plot devices.

There were also a few kids when he's sprinting through the City and of course some in Zion. But none of these were anything more than background or plot devices.

On a related note, Kelly and I thought Keanu did a good acting job in Siddhartha. Check it out sometime. Well, for him. Don't expect miracles.

Also the scene in Johnny Mnemonic where he is yelling about room service. So much funny.
 
Do you know his name? No. He's just a potential. Those kids are plot devices, they could as easily be not children. Kids are just cuter!

Cyberpunk deals with very few children as people. One exception I can think of is the excellent manga Eden: It's an Endless World. ht

tp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eden:_It%27s_an_Endless_World!

Children and child like persons are present from beginning to end in the series.

Another, arguably, would be Akira, although those are teens. The psychic children really display few childish characteristics and are more like adults.

I wonder if it's that we find it uncomfortable to place children in such a setting. Their journey from innocence to awareness nicely mirrors the reader/watcher's and so is a common storytelling tool, but rarely in cyberpunk.
 
Do you know his name? No. He's just a potential. Those kids are plot devices, they could as easily be not children. Kids are just cuter!

Cyberpunk deals with very few children as people. One exception I can think of is the excellent manga Eden: It's an Endless World. ht

tp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eden:_It%27s_an_Endless_World!

Children and child like persons are present from beginning to end in the series.

Another, arguably, would be Akira, although those are teens. The psychic children really display few childish characteristics and are more like adults.

I wonder if it's that we find it uncomfortable to place children in such a setting. Their journey from innocence to awareness nicely mirrors the reader/watcher's and so is a common storytelling tool, but rarely in cyberpunk.

i was thinking like children walking with their moms on a busy street holding their moms hand. just for the realism.
 
I vote no, it would either be handled poorly, or it would get the game banned. It's not worth the problems it would create.
 
"or it would get the game banned"
Just for having kids in it? or because, you know, every time anyone see a kid, they automaticaly want to kill them?
Like this?

Personnaly, I was talking about "mature view" of them, not just "they are kids, they are fragile" who is pretty much what any soccermom should think about any kid they see. but more something like in the line of today, when you talk to teenagers, they watch porn on internet, had their first relation at 12 or close, some smokes cigarette (even drugs...), and do a lot of crappy stuff that i wouldn't even conceveid at their age, like Skins party and likes.
Thanks Internet.
An Immature view would be actually to think that kids are "bland", in reality, they're just "sponge" to the world surrounding them.
Give them a fucked up world, you'll have fucked up kids....

Also, just seeing kids, to make the world deeper and much more realist like AnimalFather said.
In CP77 you aren't born in a cuve or something, and the first day of your life, you're not 16.

There isn't only in matrix that the kids are involved (even if they just stays as background characters) Read "Hardwired", at one time, Cowboy and Sarah goes to negociate with a corporate, an ugly bastard who keep the orphan from the streets, brainwash them, and use them as sex slaves... and you know, NOTHING IS TOLD, there's no "the things i like the most in the world is to rape kids" with this running in background:
[video=youtube;yw7lUMC-m3Q]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yw7lUMC-m3Q[/video]
They just go to meet him, and the athmosphere is so disgusting, without anything said or shown, but everyone understand that some digusting stuff are going there.
Or there's this moment in "Count Zero", before Bobby gets stabbed for his console, when he watches two kids, playing with toxic chemical waste or something, he told them "Get out! it's dangerous!" they answer him "Fuck you oldies" or something like this, before fleeing with the toxic waste.
Or in the Neuromancer, when Case has the flashback with the hornet-nest, and it's says that he was living alone with his Gf at 13/14 yo or something (Kids/teen).
Those are just some example thought, anyway, it's up to CDPR to incorporate them or not.
Personnaly i wouldn't mind if there were no kid at all, but as i said, they could be used as plot device or something, or just being in a few places.

Sure, if there's no kids, no problem, but kid aren't in the game for the only purpose to be killed, there's actually a lot of stuff to show with them, like "how are they educated?" "How do a kid feels when he lives in a world like this", "how do they see their future?", "Who is their family? corporation, people, gang, nomads, etc..." lot of stuff that could be nice to see, not only child soldiers or "meat bags" to fire at.
Even some funny side-mission with kids (like the Goonies movie) could be actually fun, to break from the "seriousness" of the game (even if CDPR told they were aiming for a Tarantinesque style of humor *witch i dig*)

Or as gameplay mechanics, like, you need to go in a stealth mission, you can give money to street kids to distract the guard at the entrance or something like this.
Pay them to watch around for cops if you sell drug with a fixer, etc...

no need to kill them,but IF you can, i doubt it would be a big deal if it's done "correctly", like if you make a shootout in a residential area, there's good chances that some kids are gonna eat bullets if they run around.

Also, i remember to read : "No need to kill anyone, you can't kill anyone in the Witcher"
Guys, it's cyberpunk, you know, a game where you're supposed to be a "punk", with a big gun, your blood loaded with drugs.
Yes, you can also be a good guy, who kill no innocents people, and who take only "Good" drugs, because he's aware of his own health... But you should be able do play a psycho who like to do crazy and stupid stuffs,

Honnestly, i want the same freedom as in Fallout or those kind of game, where i can choose who i want to kill or not, it's Cyberpunk guys you know, there's CYBER and there's PUNK, being punk isn't just having a mohawk and listening to Green Day, The Exploited or those kind of stuff (I know a bunch of punks who would call them posers), nowadays "real punks" (crust punks), at least, the closer descripted in Cyberpunk 2020, don't listen to "punk rock" they listen to brutal stuff like this:
They drink, riot, mosh, take drugs (thought some don't, like in the Straight edge movement), etc...
This is the "Punk" feeling i want to have in the game, not the "mass media punk cliché" you can see on Disney Channel.
I want mohawk, i want stud, i want strong language, i want bloody gunfights
I want to deal drugs, and beat the guys who bought some from me... because it's cool...because it's fun... BECAUSE IT'S PUNK!!!

So if you set the game in 2077, no one is killable, the punks are just retards with pink mohawk, looking at their outfit like a bunch of girls, it's not Cyberpunk, it's CyberPansies.

Rather stay on the PnP if you can do less stuff in the game (gameplay wise) than on the pnp, no talking about kid or whatever, but you're "free" in the rpg, so pulling a bullet in you own brain, your friend hand, or fire at someone at the other side of the street should be possible, because even if Cyberpunk need a good story, it's also action packed.

Personnaly, i'm not interested to play a "Cyberpunk 2077" point and click.
I want a deep, immersive world, with a "TRUE" dark and grim world with bits of gore and stuff like that.
Not a PG 13 "dark and grim world".

In fact, i want CDPR to show some balls "Here we come, and we're gonna kick ass".
No being affraid by censor or whatever, because censor is what kill creativity.

Phantasy Star Online is nice, but i don't want CP ending looking like this.
In fact that would suck big time (with so much content, and just erasing them out because "that would shock people", that said i can understand that there's some stuff that can't be pulled in, but an "Adult Only" game could have strong content involved without much problem imo, if it work with movies, why not video games?)

With all that said, it's just my opinion, not attacking anyone. :confused:
 
Any type of story cohesion, any semblance of a rational game world is destroyed once they let the player run amok for the sake of it.
 

227

Forum veteran
Any type of story cohesion, any semblance of a rational game world is destroyed once they let the player run amok for the sake of it.
What are you talking about? You can run amok and kill indiscriminately in Planescape, Arcanum, Baldur's Gate 2, and a bunch of other games with great stories. The fear of missing out on some of that story by killing someone with something interesting to say is often the disincentive for doing so.

I once hit a bug in Planescape with Trist's quest. She's the lady being sold at the slave auction, and the quest bugged out so that I couldn't help her. Since there was nothing that could be done, I attacked all of the slaver guards and killed just about everyone but her. It wasn't as fulfilling as actually finishing the quest, but having that kind of freedom at least gave me a sense of closure that wasn't possible otherwise. It would have been much more frustrating if all of the random slaver characters were inexplicably invincible or couldn't be attacked at all. That would have been a completely pointless limitation.

Better to have no kids than introduce artificial limitations on who can and can't be attacked. In fact, I'd like to have the freedom to (stupidly) attack even story-important characters like you can in Arcanum.
 
Better to have no kids than introduce artificial limitations on who can and can't be attacked. In fact, I'd like to have the freedom to (stupidly) attack even story-important characters like you can in Arcanum.

This, exactly. I liked that in Arcanum. I liked it in Morrowind. Invulnerable NPCs are a big sign saying, "fake world, make believe! Make believe!". Have enough of those already.
 
I'm referring to random NPC's/children. Civilians. What 227 described is the ability to kill or spare quest related NPC's, which I'm all for.
 
Okay, true. But the ability to kill or spare quest NPCs, if it's a deliberate option left in, would stand in sharp contrast to the other "civilians" you can't kill. Which would then really remove the "everyone is equally mortal" aspect of allowing killable quest-givers.

Which would ironically highlight how special they are as compared to the rest of the world.
 
This, exactly. I liked that in Arcanum. I liked it in Morrowind. Invulnerable NPCs are a big sign saying, "fake world, make believe! Make believe!". Have enough of those already.

I mostly agree except I don't feel The Witcher 2 suffered at all from invulnerable NPCs. I never wanted to kill the civilians in that game, or at least thought better of it. Immortal characters are really just a moot point unless your mass murdering, and I feel the ease of this is the real immersion breaking element. In real life, even if I had absolutely no morals, I would never go to a crowded area and start killing people, it would never end well. The same needs to go in the game, there needs to be quick concequences, quicker than Max-Tac's AV flying across town. Here's a few possible solutions:

-Killing innocent people lowers your humanity (dramatically in the case of women and children), rampages quickly lead to cyberpsychosis and game over.

-Whenever your in a crowd 9 times out of 10 there will be someone (if not several people) tougher than you that can and will end you quickly. You should never reach a point in the game where you can easily outgun the entire police force. You are never God in cyberpunk, God is sex, drugs and braindance and the companies that sell them to crucify you with.

-(Mass)Murder is a very high priority crime, if you commit it and somehow manage to escape, chances are you will be Wanted and hunted down.

-NPCs could be valuable (don't laugh) being an intricate functioning cog of the game world, each having a purpose, be it a job or service, quest, info, small background story/personality/family, or just ecological stability.

The problem with games isn't X character can't be killed, it's the fact killing them crosses our mind as a good/entertaining idea. Everyone should be killable in CP2077, but doing so should clash heavily with the other features that need to be present, like constant danger and desperate, desperate survival.
 
I'm referring to random NPC's/children. Civilians. What 227 described is the ability to kill or spare quest related NPC's, which I'm all for.

maybe they could do it like Scarface where the player character says something if you try to kill a kid. If you're in a car it'll stop if you try running one over.
 
"In real life, even if I had absolutely no morals, I would never go to a crowded area and start killing people, it would never end well. The same needs to go in the game, there needs to be quick concequences, quicker than Max-Tac's AV flying across town."

That's exactly what i was talking about, you're the only one responsible for your actions.
Sure you should be able to shoot wherever you want... but you'll have to endorse the consequence to your actions, and the shitstorm following them (people shooting you, police comin up, etc...). In my RPG games i often have two save, one really serious, and a second where i play just for fun, trying to do the crapiest character.

Removing this would be like "you're free.... to do what the game want you to do, otherwise fuck you", why couldn't you just shoot all around, just for the fun of it?
Yes, your game have good chance to end quickly, and then what? I assume it's the gamer's own problem, it's the same in the PnP.

Also, having the crowd armed, and ready to defend themselves would make the game a lot harder (don't fire anywhere, or you'll be overwhelmed with enemies, police will think you're a cyberpsycho, etc...). Don't forget that in the pnp there's a lot of "You're in the middle of the street / a bar and a gunfight start, choose your target", so that would make the NPC unkillable and suddently killable, that would feel akwards.

Anyway, even if the NPC aren't killable, 2month after the Cyberpunk 2077 release, there will be a patch or a mod to make them killable, so the only thing important would be "how will the game play out when you roam alone in the world?"

Because, a lot of game use those kind of stuff too, like in the FPS (Call of duty, Soldier of fortune, etc...), if you're an american, in a mission in the USA, YOU CAN'T KILL ANY AMERICAIN CIVILIAN (game over > start the mission again), but if you're in the middle east, you can kill everyone you want, even spare the soldier and spend all your bullets on that poor "muslim", who is killable just "because he isn't a civilian american", that sound totaly retarded (and almost racist, no to say so... since when a civilian american's life is worth sparing than a middle east civilian?)

So, is the game have to be passive, like: you walk in the desert, and a bunch of nomads shows up, could you choose to fire at first and speak later (damn you, gypsy!), or be "passive" and wait for the enemy to shoot you at first, and then you're able to kill them.

Or there would be "pre-defined" enemy, but then, the game would feel broken you can't kill this one, but this one you can. like "you can't kill anyone in Night CIty, but don't mind to blow those nomads into pieces, they deserve it, you damn poors!"

Or being able to kill no one, and just walking and waiting to eat a bullet to gives em back... (but if the damages are as brutal as in the PnP, i would'nt like to have to eat a bullet first lol)
 
Top Bottom