"You fire your gun at a human enemy 10 levels higher than you - headshot."

+
Eltyris;n9739551 said:
Hmm, am I the only one worried that CDPR's lead designer is asking these questions? I mean, this is not rocket science or something you need a Tesla to figure out.
Let's hope Rowley is simply gauging people's thoughts on this.
Not only does this not worry me, it makes me even more excited for CP2077.

As has been shown here in these forums, there's a lot of differing points of view and creative talent out there. Not tapping into it and taking the "We know best" or "Your input is neither desired nor appreciated" approach is one of the major flaws in video game design. Does that mean developers should implement all these ideas? Hell no, first many are contradictory, many are just plain stupid, many don't "fit" the overall game concept, but ideas, and discussing their merits/flaws may lead you as a developer in a different direction then you'd have gone in the typical development vacuum.

And actually, in many ways, it's harder then rocket science.
Rocket science is simply the application of physics and chemistry, video game development deals with people. A far FAR less stable and predictable factor.
 
Last edited:
You can learn something in unexpected places, it's always good to hear people's thoughts about something even if your mind is made up about how things will work. Maybe it can help you refine an idea you already had, or consider something you never thought of before.
 
Sardukhar;n9729501 said:
BUT IF IT DID have levels or something level-shaped, what would you like to see?
If I roll a critical hit - enemy falls down. If he's alive, he's in bad shape, not able fight properly, his buttbudies cover him and retreat into Combat Zone labyrinth.
Some time and levels (exactly 10 again, yeah) you meet the same enemy again. He's got a big-ass scar on whatever place of his head bullet hits, expensive-ass protection gear with state-of-the-art helmet and he wants your blood for the blood of his dead buddies. There's alot to learn from nemesis system from Shadow of War too. You did alot of damage to your enemy's body and have shaken his physical health during a fight because you're a such a sadist? 20 lvls and he's A FULL 'BORG OMYGODRUN.

BTW, same applies to you, dear player. Buy our game and git gud.





Now onto serious side. Headshots are very devastating. Code E- scum falls down from one and shouldn't have a chance. KyleRowley once answered on a reply about one-shoting everything, like isn't it boring and kills the feel of progression? Two words for this.
S & R
P & E
R & C
E & O
A & I
D & L

All extra depended on character's sheet of stats'n'skills. Adds alot of decision making in choosing your gear. Do you want a reliable and tested with time AK-74 or rather go with something easier to handle like M4?

This elegant problem solution is brought to you by #TeamTroika. The best RPGs in existance, either TB or RTwP, brought to your pleasure.
 
Last edited:
Suhiira;n9741121 said:
Not only does this not worry me, it makes me even more excited for CP2077.

As has been shown here in these forums, there's a lot of differing points of view and creative talent out there. Not tapping into it and taking the "We know best" or "Your input is neither desired nor appreciated" approach is one of the major flaws in video game design. Does that mean developers should implement all these ideas? Hell no, first many are contradictory, many are just plain stupid, many don't "fit" the overall game concept, but ideas, and discussing their merits/flaws may lead you as a developer is a different direction then you'd have gone in the typical development vacuum.

And actually, in many ways, it's harder then rocket science.
Rocket science is simply the application of physics and chemistry, video game development deals with people. A far FAR less stable and predictable factor.

Not really...there are definite, objective, reasons why certain type of design is praised next to others. Do you think that Arkane games, for instance, are regarded for some of the best level design, simply because some people "like it"? It involves comprehensive study and understanding of geometry, architecture, along with using aesthetics and gameplay to complement it.

https://www.gamasutra.com/view/news...Deep_Dive_Dishonored_2s_Clockwork_Mansion.php

The same is true here. We are biologically hardwired to recognize certain properties and automatically build impressions based on them: fact. Skilled developer will use this to present as much information to the player more intuitively, instead of plastering the world with UI icons.

Red is the most intense of colors, and it automatically draws attention, alerts, signifies danger. In nature it indicated danger, there is a reason why in Traffic we use it immediately say : STOP! ...in world design, clever developer will use it as orientation guideline to landmarks instead of using cheap quest markers. Or when it comes to enemy ( level) design.
The same is true with size, tone of voice, composure, and a myriad of other factors.

Good game design may not be accessible to everyone, but is easily recognizable and can be seen past personal bias ( at least with intelligent, mature people). Of course, no matter how well you do your job, someone will always scream it sucks, but no good designer ( in my book) tries to create something that caters to everyone's whim.
 
Meccanical;n9741391 said:
You can learn something in unexpected places, it's always good to hear people's thoughts about something even if your mind is made up about how things will work. Maybe it can help you refine an idea you already had, or consider something you never thought of before.

I agree and it's a shame devs rarely communicate here, but this is more like having your math teacher ask you:

Uhh, how goes that Phytagorean theorem again?

What's bizarre is how developers seem to copy one another's design without thinking without really thinking about crucial differences in design/goal of both...we've all seen some of MMO mechanics "infecting" single player games, with no real benefit to them.

Or flat out repeat one another's mistakes.

Recently, because they were inspired by Witcher, Ubisoft added the same "leveled system" of quests and enemies in AC Origins, that created so many unnecessary problems in the game ( which even CDPR admitted and added global scaling as an option, year later).

And of course the result is game with exactly the same issues of conflict between gameplay with a more open world and emphasis on exploration, next to very linear/rigid mechanics that restrict it.



 
Last edited:
Another greatest arpege ever, fourth, Fallout: New Vegas, have dealt with I-cannot-believe-this-guy-is-10-lvls-higher-than-me-and-what-a-bullet-sponge-he-is-I-ain't-spend-bullets-on-that-freak-of-terrible-gamedesign by using different types of ammunition, use of strong poisons on blades, in other words, made player's weapons more effective against various enemy types. Along with carrying over from one of those redeeming redeeming qualities of old Fallout games - Damage Threshold, armor number vs damage hit number. It's one of those simple yet basically an absolutely PNP game mechanic that's easy to carry over to action games and absolutely recommended to use or your RPGs will suck Morrowind 'shrooms at least in combat department. Have a nice day, always reading CDPR.

It's either how I spent time writing posts about what happens and how to deal with enemies or I don't know what is a dream rpg.

I'm 228.1488% sure KyleRowley started these twitter question posting partly to answer back to trolls about gamedesign, that it's not easy, there's no definite way and similar words that can be used, absolutely not related to CP2077 since they already have a working system and pre-production cycle is over. Well... Since when "observe and reflect", even from the very finest pieces of the beloved genre along with combining and adapting to modern times the most useful stuff from them is not a *way*?
 
Last edited:
Meccanical;n9727691 said:
'What happens and why?"

https://twitter.com/TimePirateNinja/status/922627128830709760

Another tweet in the "Dream RPG" series by our very own ADD Krow and another interesting topic.

My answer? High number or not, his luck ran out and he got caught with a hot rock. That enemy should be fatally wounded if not dead. I feel like RPGs, especially the videogame variety, often get to caught up in numbers and don't really examine what they actually mean. I never understood how in some games if you increase your characters proficiency with a firearm, this suddenly means that the bullets he fires will slam harder into his adversaries. We need to focus less on the abstraction of numbers, and refocus back onto the meaning behind that abstraction in the first place.

TL:DR Don't be like the Division please.

Indeed bullet sponge syndrome is literal cancer and ruins combat.



 
LegateLaniusThe2nd;n9750691 said:
Indeed bullet sponge syndrome is literal cancer and ruins combat.

It is. But the alternative to bullet sponges here is to distort the precision of controls, and then you have the crowd cry foul for that too. Going fom "Oh my god, why do I have to put 32 rounds to someones face to kill him?!" to "Oh my god, how did I miss when my crosshair was dead on?!" People can't take the abstract either way, and if you have neither it's just a shooter. There's no winning with this one.
 
Last edited:
LegateLaniusThe2nd;n9750691 said:
Indeed bullet sponge syndrome is literal cancer and ruins combat.
It all ties into the "need" to have big numbers flashing on the screen and weapons doing huge amounts of damage to placate the clueless masses.

Does it matter of your weapon does 50,000 damage when the MOB has 1,000,000 hit points? It would work out EXACTLY the same if you did 5 damage and the MOB had 100 hit points.

Now there is some advantage to having damage number in the double ( maybe triple) digits, you have the room to add minor tweaks to weaponry ...
A "normal" weapon does 30 damage. a better quality one might do 33. Also you can have armor that blocks/absorbs some set amount of damage (which is how it should work, NOT block/absorb a percentage). True, you can easily work with fractions on puters. but why if you don't need to? Whole numbers take up slightly less
data storage if they're not so large it takes multiple bytes to store/manipulate them.
 
Last edited:
I'm playing Fallout 3 for the first time (yeah, potato computer, any problems with that?) and while I'm enjoying the game a lot (it is fun and addictive. I like exploring and I love making weapons following diagrams so I suppose I'd be tripping balls with Fallout 4. It's also a lot more forgiving than say, 2, where you can play all of the game with mostly no problems until the very end when they reveal to you that your character build that worked fine is utter shit and will never be able to finish the endgame... I wish there was more roleplaying and for the setting to actually feel postapocalyptic with scarcity and stuff, but ok...) I hate the way it uses the oposition to bar off areas. It gives you the impression that with sheer skill you could make up for low level or dps. Those pesky bullet sponge heads Talon Company and infinite Super Mutants appearing in the south east of DC as soon as you fast travel...

I think that getting a headshot... may not grant an instant kill, but going overboard is very immersion breaking. Make sure you protect critical characters other ways or something. Have my reticle not close all the way down to perfect aim at my current skill level. Make them move a lot. Give them plating and a helmet. Give them a full cyborg escort. Put them in places where I shouldn't be carrying a gun.

Three bullets tops for the head with "human" enemies. With cyborgs... I dunno.
 
kofeiiniturpa;n9750981 said:
It is. But the alternative to bullet sponges here is to distort the precision of controls, and then you have the crowd cry foul for that too. Going fom "Oh my god, why do I have to put 32 rounds to someones face to kill him?!" to "Oh my god, how did I miss when my crosshair was dead on?!" People can't take the abstract either way, and if you have neither it's just a shooter. There's no winning with this one.

Both are wrong approaches, as classical rpg progression simply does not translate well into modern third/first person gameplay. It was non issue In crpgs like Fallout or Baldur's Gate: you did not directly control your aim or see enemy from a very close perspective.

In this case CDPR should compensate by "extending" player/difficulty progression into other areas instead, through:

Economy...learning points+purchase skills/abilities/etc. More refined system similar to Enderal, Gothic, etc.
Narrative/faction system... gaining higher social rank/prestige of your role
Encounter design... higher difficulty enemies formed in stronger, more complementary, cohesive groups
AI ...higher morale, speed, aggression and co-op
Cyberware and Equipment...no "levels", but armor value being extremely relevant
"Zone" difficulty...higher numbers, security levels, patrol routes, alarm response time, accessibility of reconnaissance etc
Developting different non combat oriented abilities of interacting/manipulating the world.. parkour, brute force depending on strength, etc
 
Eltyris;n9752031 said:
Both are wrong approaches, as classical rpg progression simply does not translate well into modern third/first person gameplay.

It's wrong approach only if the the expectation is laid out to be the contrary. The perspective is a non-issue in the "translation" if the mechanical part of the gameplay is clearly designed for the purpose and not to appear as if you could play it like a modern shooter. It's more about clarity of intended experience than this or that type of design being unfit for "modern 1st/3rd person gameplay".

The idea that if it has a close enough perspective, then it must play in a certain specific way is, imo, flawed and anti-creative and essentially unimaginative. I know going against the grain where would be a risk, but someone's gotta be the first. I believe people only expect 1st/3rd person perspective to produce a slick shooter/action gameplay because no one's offered them anything else in ages, not because they wouldn't like or be able to accept anything else from those perspecitves.
 
Last edited:
I agree that classical RPG progression doesn't translate well, but I would add that if that happened in a game I directed I would take into consideration all the variables, including the potency of the weapon shooting and the armor in enemy's head. I suppose that, in terms of a video-game combat, there could be a random element called "luck" although you don't have dice to establish such luck, that would play in favor of either the shooter or the enemy.
 
kofeiiniturpa;n9752851 said:
I believe people only expect 1st/3rd person perspective to produce a slick shooter/action gameplay because no one's offered them anything else in ages, not because they wouldn't like or be able to accept anything else from those perspecitves.
You have a point.
BUT, the problem is you are, in fact, fighting expectations.
Powerful stuff.

The other issue is you're assuming CP2077 has to appeal to the shooter game crowd.
Why?
Simply because it increases potential sales?
NOW you're beginning to sound like EA upper management (sorry for the insult).
 
Suhiira;n9754191 said:
BUT, the problem is you are, in fact, fighting expectations.
Powerful stuff.

Yes. There should be communication well in time to push the expectations at least in the right direction, if there was the danger of people expecting X when the developer was making Y.

Suhiira;n9754191 said:
The other issue is you're assuming CP2077 has to appeal to the shooter game crowd. Why? Simply because it increases potential sales? NOW you're beginning to sound like EA upper management (sorry for the insult).

No, no. I don't think it has to and I've tried to push that idea forward too (for years). That it can well do something else as long as it does it well. There's plenty of ways to design games that do not need to be the common ground action/shooter shit (where combat is applied) just because that's the trend.

It's just that it's been implied that that's where the game is going when it comes to combat. CDPR didn't want character skills affecting combat "much at all" the last time they opened up about it, that I can remember. I can't really think what is "not much at all" other than useless bunch of statistics whose practical effect to gameplay is next to zero.
 
kofeiiniturpa;n9754311 said:
It's just that it's been implied that that's where the game is going when it comes to combat. CDPR didn't want character skills affecting combat "much at all" the last time they opened up about it, that I can remember. I can't really think what is "not much at all" other than useless bunch of statistics whose practical effect to gameplay is next to zero.
I'm REALLY hoping ... praying in fact ... they've changed their mind about this since it was said.
Simply because I want to play CP2077, but have zero interest in playing COD2077.

Yeah ... I know many folks would love to play COD2077 ... I'm not one of them.
 
kofeiiniturpa;n9752851 said:
It's wrong approach only if the the expectation is laid out to be the contrary. The perspective is a non-issue in the "translation" if the mechanical part of the gameplay is clearly designed for the purpose and not to appear as if you could play it like a modern shooter. It's more about clarity of intended experience than this or that type of design being unfit for "modern 1st/3rd person gameplay".

It's not a question if is an rpg or a shooter, it's how gameplay mechanics reflect on player experience...as you put it, "clarity of it".

What is good game design? Roughly speaking, it's when different aspects/mechanics/etc of the game are coherent, complement one another, act together to achieve the same goal. Poor design is opposite: when they clearly contradict one another.

For example...rpg progression system and level scaling. If I've levelled up and gained, something like +20% damage gain to my character, while enemies due to lvl scaling automatically gain ( equal) damage resistance( or HP)...what's the point of having either in the game, since they nullify one another? You may as well have none and save yourself salaries of designers hired to work on this.

Similar situation is here.

Fact: Progression systems like the ones in isometric crpgs are designed to affect % character's actions, like hit chance.
Fact: Third and First person games are designed to provide more immersive experience, by putting control directly in hands of the player.

It is plain and obvious, these are two very different types of games with very different design goals, and trying to directly mix them both, would lead to poor results. What player sees and what character progression system dictates are disconnected from one another, and result is a game that plays poorly.


kofeiiniturpa;n9752851 said:
The idea that if it has a close enough perspective, then it must play in a certain specific way is, imo, flawed and anti-creative and essentially unimaginative. I know going against the grain where would be a risk, but someone's gotta be the first. I believe people only expect 1st/3rd person perspective to produce a slick shooter/action gameplay because no one's offered them anything else in ages, not because they wouldn't like or be able to accept anything else from those perspecitves.

They have. Morrowind, Mass Effect, Witcher I, Fallout III, Alpha Protocol, etc...different games from different studios: same results.

"The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result".


Game that did this well however, is Deus Ex. Character progression system affecting things like basic control of gunplay, but in a less "blunt" way, respecting player perspective and striking a good balance between player control and dependancy on character stats ( imo).


Suhiira;n9754191 said:
You have a point.
BUT, the problem is you are, in fact, fighting expectations.
Powerful stuff.

The other issue is you're assuming CP2077 has to appeal to the shooter game crowd.
Why?
Simply because it increases potential sales?
NOW you're beginning to sound like EA upper management (sorry for the insult).

I'm pretty sure most reasonable people here want a well designed, complex rpg that plays well and do not see rpg mechanics as something strictly defined by % hit chance, or appealing to any "crowd".

And this is not the result of some conspiracy by Evil publishers/Dumbing down/Waaaaah!...games like Gothic (2001), Masquerade bloodlines ( 2004) or New Vegas( 2009) have completely different system of control than more traditional rpgs, and yet are considered among the best rpgs, even by "hardcore" community.

Why? Because there is a lot more to roleplaying and building your character than how it affects your crosshair.

No offense, but you should try and look at things with less bias than only through strict black/white spectrum.

Calling every game with shooting mechanics a COD clone is plain ridiculous.
 
Last edited:
Eltyris;n9754491 said:
It's not a question if is an rpg or a shooter

Oh but it is if the implied experience and the practical experience are at odds, which they usually are due to the ideals striving for opposite directions and both being wanted in -- the former towards character control and the latter towards player control. Then you get confused shit like Fallout 3.

Eltyris;n9754491 said:
They have. Morrowind, Mass Effect, Witcher I, Fallout III, Alpha Protocol, etc...different games from different studios: same results. "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result".

This assumes repetition of those former titles is suggested, and that their faults can not be helped.

Given the context it also implies it is insane to struggle against trends and think outside the box because it always leads to your example games anyway.

Seems like a hopeless situation, but none of that is really true. Aside from Morrowind, all of those examples attempted to be a "shooter with stats", that does not need to be the case here.

The game need not be designed such that your crosshair is representative of anything else but the general direction you look at, and aiming and firing a weapon can work differently. (for example)

It's not written in stone that those examples of yours are some kind of pinnacle of "traditionalesque" RPG design in any respect that would need to be copied.

It might be insane to repeat and expect things to change, but it is also dullminded to think there are no options and then not even try to find them.

Eltyris;n9754491 said:
Fact: Third and First person games are designed to provide more immersive experience, by putting control directly in hands of the player.

There's no actual standard on "how much" control the player actually needs to have with those perspectives. It is nowadays just automatically assumed that it is all of it, because so many other games do it that way.
 
Last edited:
Eltyris;n9754491 said:
I'm pretty sure most reasonable people here want a well designed, complex rpg that plays well and do not see rpg mechanics as something strictly defined by % hit chance, or appealing to any "crowd".

And this is not the result of some conspiracy by Evil publishers/Dumbing down/Waaaaah!...games like Gothic (2001), Masquerade bloodlines ( 2004) or New Vegas( 2009) have completely different system of control than more traditional rpgs, and yet are considered among the best rpgs, even by "hardcore" community.

Why? Because there is a lot more to roleplaying and building your character than how it affects your crosshair.

No offense, but you should try and look at things with less bias than only through strict black/white spectrum.

Calling every game with shooting mechanics a COD clone is plain ridiculous.
So you don't see a problem with a game where dialog options and skill success/failure are determined by CHARACTER skills/traits/alignment/class and combat is in the hands of the PLAYER?

As to the rest of it ... I'm perfectly fine with people enjoying COD ... I just have no personal desire to play it ... nor do I want to see an RPG ... ANY RPG ... utilize FPS mechanics because the very concept of RPG is shattered when skill use (and yes, combat is a skill) success/failure it taken from the character and given to the player.

P.S.
And yes, I'm ignoring all the games out there that call themselves RPGs (usually because that have some sort of leveling or skill selection system) but really aren't.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom