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.