Preview Cyberpunk 2077 PlayStation Gameplay Footage

[hivemind]

noo broos the nomad is riding a car nooo it is oover

 

[luj1]

Deus Ex is among my favorite games of all time/platforms/genres, but in my book "the combat is nothing like Dues Ex's" is a gigantic pro for CP 2077.

I count the aiming system of the first Deus Ex among the worst design ideas ever conceived for an action RPG. And I mean EVER

You're right bro, it's much better to throw toothpicks at enemies and wait for them to die

 

[Naraya]

noo broos the nomad is riding a car nooo it is oover

Preorder cancelled. PS5 returned. Wife divorced. Cat dead.

 

[Dr Schultz]

but their shooting mechanics are undoubtedly funnier than Deus ex's.

Use a laser mod on a gun in Deus Ex and you'd disagree with that statement. It removes the skill limitations on your shooting accuracy which means dispatching enemies in rapid succession. Its the equivalent of having the gun maxed out on skills and on accuracy mods.
The system is flawed and made redundant so whilst I agree not a good system there is proof of concept in Deus Ex anyway which shows what it could have been if they had removed it and focused more on speed. From my experience it makes the game very fun and fast paced yet most people miss it because they don't find the laser or use it too early on a weapon that won't last the entire game. (Recommend putting it on the Pistol and Assault Rifle then you can run and gun most of the game and even put silencers on both).

Look, over the years I've finished the original Deus Ex five times, I think. I know how to squeeze any ounce of fun from that game. I can't disagree with you that the laser mod makes the shooting less irritating, but design-wise you can't rely on an optional mod to make a game system fun. The truth is that the shooting in Deus Ex isn't fun per se, nor is in line with the narrative. Stealth isn't fun either. But the game is still great because it allows players to tailor their gameplay style for real (more than in many supposed full fledged RPGs) and because its level design is gold.

Deus Ex is among my favorite games of all time/platforms/genres, but in my book "the combat is nothing like Dues Ex's" is a gigantic pro for CP 2077.

I count the aiming system of the first Deus Ex among the worst design ideas ever conceived for an action RPG. And I mean EVER

You're right bro, it's much better to throw toothpicks at enemies and wait for them to die

No offence man, but I realized years ago that making you understand the simplest principle of game design will cost me more energies than explaining to a no-vax how life was before mass vaccination. So I respectfully pass

 

[Gargaune]

And I entirely disagree in turn, conceptually and in practice.

- Conceptually because the idea that a character system must necessarily be a "zero to hero“ framework is wrong. A character system must reflect the narrative of the game, or at least its themes. In Deus Ex you are supposed to be a nano augmented badass from the get go, not only an improvement compared to a normal human being, but also to a previous generation of augmented super agents. In reality, though, the game makes you shoot worse than my grandpa. Narrative and character system are totally disjointed.

In principle, I agree with you on having cohesion between your fiction and your mechanics, but you need to allow for some incongruence in an RPG since "zero to hero" is what that sort of game is all about. It's also worth pointing out that DX doesn't start you as Untrained across the board - your default starting state is Trained in Pistols and 5000XP to invest on other skills, or you can even reclaim your Pistols training to recover another 1575XP. Practically, you could start as Trained in three skills or as Advanced in one and Trained in another.

The real contention here is what "zero" should represent in context, and while you are correct in pointing out that it would be inconsistent for a special agent like JC to be "Untrained" in most weapon types, like rifles or demolition, you can also apply that argument to computers or medicine or, hell, swimming. Sure, you can argue that the protagonist should be well trained in everything, theoretically, but you need to cut an RPG some slack in that department.

So, strictly from a writing perspective for this sort of game, Ion Storm's mistake was primarily calling the starting skill levels "Untrained" rather than "Basic" or something like that. Otherwise, JC can do everything, all the skills are about performance rather than features, with the exception of Computers which unlocks hacking at Trained. It's not great framing, but I can gloss over it easily.

or you need to start with a recruit in-training and somehow justify all his involvement in the plot.

Yeah, okay, I can get onboard with that. Playing up a more "rookie" role for JC might've had some benefits in this regard.

That said, even though I recognize that an attribute-dependent targeting system makes perfect sense from an RPG point of view (and your character's influence on your game skills), without exception, all these systems play like shit. All the games that used such systems that were fun and interesting, were like that not because of it, but despite it. Honestly, this is an RPG element concession that I would easily abandon in any game with shooting gameplay. It just feels terrible.

— In practice I disagree because the shooting in Deus Ex simply isn't fun, not even compared to the first Wolfenstain, leave alone the FPS of its era(Half-life) or the current Era (Doom). If you compare Deus Ex to a modern looter-shooter like Borderline or Destiny, you get why spongy enemies are the lesser evil here. And don't get me wrong, I don't like at all this kind of games because of their grindy naturure, but their shooting mechanics are undoubtedly funnier than Deus ex's.

Now we move on to the more important mechanical implications. Like I said, I agree that Deus Ex's shooting isn't good, but that's a matter of execution, of balancing the variables involved, not a flaw in the underlying concept. The main issue with the handling is that the differences between Untrained and Advanced are too dramatic, the starting level is too sluggish, and then you've got the Master level which would make Clint Eastwood cry "hax!" It all needed to be iterated on with a lot more playtesting and balancing between the individual skills and the weapons themselves.

Now look at Deus Ex 4. It uses the same core idea, with your weapon "skills" affecting your motion sway, recoil and reload speed, but its shooting is satisfying, because the variabes were more appropriately tuned for that sort of gameplay. If anything, I'd argue Eidos Montreal went too far with it, since the impact range on sway and recoil is a little too subtle for my tastes, the base was fine but I'd have liked the aim to progress in slightly larger increments towards a tighter high-end.

 

[TheDiceMustRoll]

Preordered it for my ps4(tm).

 

[Burning Bridges]

So this is GTA popamole from Poland?`LOL

 

[Burning Bridges]

WTF do they think they are making here?

Futuristic GTA, it was never a secret

GTA already has futuristic wepaons.

In fact GTA online is nothing but a science fiction battlefield with flying motorbikes, laser guns and orbital cannons.

 

[Gay-Lussac]

I just have to chime in to say how shit GTA V is as a single player game. I played it this year for the first time and was flabbergasted at how braindead and boringly easy it was. And all those stupid fucking heist mechanics that could've been good but are basically an advertisement for their online slot machine. All the money that you can collect to buy venues to... get more money?

It's just so fucking bad, it's like Oblivion/Skyrim where I'm living in a bizarro world where these absolute turds are revered as the second coming of christ.

 

[mibbles]

That's some visceral and immersive gameplay right there, boys.

 

[Dr Schultz]

And I entirely disagree in turn, conceptually and in practice.

- Conceptually because the idea that a character system must necessarily be a "zero to hero“ framework is wrong. A character system must reflect the narrative of the game, or at least its themes. In Deus Ex you are supposed to be a nano augmented badass from the get go, not only an improvement compared to a normal human being, but also to a previous generation of augmented super agents. In reality, though, the game makes you shoot worse than my grandpa. Narrative and character system are totally disjointed.

In principle, I agree with you on having cohesion between your fiction and your mechanics, but you need to allow for some incongruence in an RPG since "zero to hero" is what that sort of game is all about. It's also worth pointing out that DX doesn't start you as Untrained across the board - your default starting state is Trained in Pistols and 5000XP to invest on other skills, or you can even reclaim your Pistols training to recover another 1575XP. Practically, you could start as Trained in three skills or as Advanced in one and Trained in another.

The real contention here is what "zero" should represent in context, and while you are correct in pointing out that it would be inconsistent for a special agent like JC to be "Untrained" in most weapon types, like rifles or demolition, you can also apply that argument to computers or medicine or, hell, swimming. Sure, you can argue that the protagonist should be well trained in everything, theoretically, but you need to cut an RPG some slack in that department.

So, strictly from a writing perspective for this sort of game, Ion Storm's mistake was primarily calling the starting skill levels "Untrained" rather than "Basic" or something like that. Otherwise, JC can do everything, all the skills are about performance rather than features, with the exception of Computers which unlocks hacking at Trained. It's not great framing, but I can gloss over it easily.

or you need to start with a recruit in-training and somehow justify all his involvement in the plot.

Yeah, okay, I can get onboard with that. Playing up a more "rookie" role for JC might've had some benefits in this regard.

Ion Storm's mistake, in my opinion, was the very common mistake of taking the "zero to hero" framework as a staple of any proper RPG.
In realty, the P&P scene is way more varied than that but the everlasting influence of systems such D&D or GURPS over videogame developers historically prevented them to experiment more with their rulesets.
I personally won't have any issue playing a CRPG where my character won't grow stronger over time or even where he/she becomes weaker over time; as long as the ruleset aligns with the fantasy that the game is trying to sell me.
In the specific case of the original Deus Ex the elephant in the room was precisely this one: you had the fantasy of being a badass super-human agent and a ruleset that didn't support this fantasy. Particularly with the shooting. But also with the remaining game systems.

That said, even though I recognize that an attribute-dependent targeting system makes perfect sense from an RPG point of view (and your character's influence on your game skills), without exception, all these systems play like shit. All the games that used such systems that were fun and interesting, were like that not because of it, but despite it. Honestly, this is an RPG element concession that I would easily abandon in any game with shooting gameplay. It just feels terrible.

— In practice I disagree because the shooting in Deus Ex simply isn't fun, not even compared to the first Wolfenstain, leave alone the FPS of its era(Half-life) or the current Era (Doom). If you compare Deus Ex to a modern looter-shooter like Borderline or Destiny, you get why spongy enemies are the lesser evil here. And don't get me wrong, I don't like at all this kind of games because of their grindy naturure, but their shooting mechanics are undoubtedly funnier than Deus ex's.

Now we move on to the more important mechanical implications. Like I said, I agree that Deus Ex's shooting isn't good, but that's a matter of execution, of balancing the variables involved, not a flaw in the underlying concept. The main issue with the handling is that the differences between Untrained and Advanced are too dramatic, the starting level is too sluggish, and then you've got the Master level which would make Clint Eastwood cry "hax!" It all needed to be iterated on with a lot more playtesting and balancing between the individual skills and the weapons themselves.

Now look at Deus Ex 4. It uses the same core idea, with your weapon "skills" affecting your motion sway, recoil and reload speed, but its shooting is satisfying, because the variabes were more appropriately tuned for that sort of gameplay. If anything, I'd argue Eidos Montreal went too far with it, since the impact range on sway and recoil is a little too subtle for my tastes, the base was fine but I'd have liked the aim to progress in slightly larger increments towards a tighter high-end.

Saying that the core idea remained unchanged is a bit of a stretch. On one hand Eidos Montreal reduced the influence of the stats over the actual shooting to the point that you don't need to spend a single point in order to have a smoot shooting experience; on the other hand they built the new system around "perks" that expand your options instead of giving you incremental bonuses. It's a complete different ruleset and I pretty much enjoyed it. For many reasons, one being the fact that this new system is way more consistent with the narrative.
What I didn't like about it was the excess of experience that both Human Revolution and Human Divided throwed at you. But this is really a matter of execution. The idea is solid.

 

[Gargaune]

Ion Storm's mistake, in my opinion, was the very common mistake of taking the "zero to hero" framework as a staple of any proper RPG.
In realty, the P&P scene is way more varied than that but the everlasting influence of systems such D&D or GURPS over videogame developers historically prevented them to experiment more with their rulesets.
I personally won't have any issue playing a CRPG where my character won't grow stronger over time or even where he/she becomes weaker over time; as long as the ruleset aligns with the fantasy that the game is trying to sell me.
In the specific case of the original Deus Ex the elephant in the room was precisely this one: you had the fantasy of being a badass super-human agent and a ruleset that didn't support this fantasy. Particularly with the shooting. But also with the remaining game systems.

That's fair enough, but then it boils down to a matter of preference. You'd have rather prioritised the roleplaying experience over the mechanical character development, whereas I was more open to compromising on fictional consistency for the sake of the latter. For my part, I agree it could've been better contextualised, but it wasn't a major detriment.

Saying that the core idea remained unchanged is a bit of a stretch. On one hand Eidos Montreal reduced the influence of the stats over the actual shooting to the point that you don't need to spend a single point in order to have a smoot shooting experience; on the other hand they built the new system around "perks" that expand your options instead of giving you incremental bonuses.

I don't see it that way, what you say is true for some of DX4's augmentations, but not for all of them and not for the weapons handling ones in particular. Unlike the original DX, which had clearly distinct passive skills and active feats (augs) drawing from separate resource pools, Montreal's formula rolled both into Praxis-driven "augmentations", but some of them (e.g. hacking levels, bioelectric recharge and "Cybernetic Weapon Handling") are still passive, incremental upgrades, i.e. skills. Handling was consolidated as a general, rather than weapon class-related skill, but split into separate upgrades for sway, recoil and reload. The core idea is still the same, though, incremental stat-driven impact on shooting gameplay.

The improved feel of combat, in my opinion, is the result of better tuned weapons and of that skill impact being more subdued, though I think Montreal did take it a little too far for exactly the reason you mentioned - your combat experience doesn't benefit enough from investing in them. My ideal balance would probably be somewhere in between the original DX and DX4 though, admittedly, closer to the latter.

 

[Raghar]

I just have to chime in to say how shit GTA V is as a single player game. I played it this year for the first time and was flabbergasted at how braindead and boringly easy it was. And all those stupid fucking heist mechanics that could've been good but are basically an advertisement for their online slot machine. All the money that you can collect to buy venues to... get more money?

It's just so fucking bad, it's like Oblivion/Skyrim where I'm living in a bizarro world where these absolute turds are revered as the second coming of christ.

Is there another freely available game where I can have character in large free world, kill some policemen in forest, and be reported as a murderer by a nearby deer? Also it has decent looking cars. And you can kill hipsters.

 

[grimace]

that chase scene is the reason rockstar had this highly aggressive snap on autoaim thing going on since gta 4. just horrible. weren't these new gyro controls supposed to level the playing field between mouse and analog? does cyberpunk not support that? was i lied to by "coping console keks"?

Chase scenes are the point in the game where most people give up and play a different game.

"Follow The Damn Train, CJ!" is a memorable quote uttered by the character Big Smoke during a mission in the 2004 action video game Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas. Due to the frustrating difficulty of the mission, the quote is often referenced online by fans of the Grand Theft Auto (GTA) series.

In the GTA: San Andreas mission "Wrong Side of The Tracks", the protagonist CJ and his partner Big Smoke are ambushed by the Vagos Gang at a train station. CJ is then ordered to chase down the escaping gang members who are on top of a train while Big Smoke attempts to shoot them down. The mission is completed once all 4 gang members are killed before the Train reaches the Fredderick Bridge that connects Los Santos with Las Venturas. Failing to do so will cause the mission to fail and prompt Big Smoke to yell "All we had to do was follow the damn Train, CJ!"

 

[RobotSquirrel]

I personally won't have any issue playing a CRPG where my character won't grow stronger over time or even where he/she becomes weaker over time

I see your point. Though the getting weaker over time bit applies to just taking on stronger enemies which Invisible War did and was absolutely terrible because of it. Those late game enemies were in some cases just unfair because it required you exclusively use the rail gun and only the rail gun to beat them. I do agree though that your character should remain fundamentally the same strength as the game progresses just for consistency sake with weapon tuning being the decisive factor as to how the player has progressed. Deus Ex did it wrong with the skill progression. The augmentations were a step in the right direction though should have been more vastly different in choice too many in all Deus Ex games are too samey and similar that they don't promote experimenting instead you just pick the optimal or perceived optimal rather than thinking "that might make for an interesting playstyle" System Shock 2 had the same problem with the psionics the choices you make don't matter beyond there are wrong choices and there are min-maxy everyone should pick them choices.

 

[deuxhero]

grimace
Really the problem with that mission isn't the aiming difficulty, it's that Big Smoke can only hit the enemies reliably if you drive a very specific left/right distance from the train and are never told you need to get closer/further, but are repeatedly and aggressively told you need to be near the train on the forward/back axis leading most players to wrongfully conclude their problem is they need to catch up to the train quicker and stay there longer. Once you learn that, it's largely trivial.

 

[laclongquan]

Nobody like playing with character growing weaker over time. Dont let anyone tell you otherwise.

 

[Gerrard]

WTF do they think they are making here?

 

[Dr Schultz]

That's fair enough, but then it boils down to a matter of preference. You'd have rather prioritised the roleplaying experience over the mechanical character development, whereas I was more open to compromising on fictional consistency for the sake of the latter. For my part, I agree it could've been better contextualised, but it wasn't a major detriment.


I don't see it that way, what you say is true for some of DX4's augmentations, but not for all of them and not for the weapons handling ones in particular. Unlike the original DX, which had clearly distinct passive skills and active feats (augs) drawing from separate resource pools, Montreal's formula rolled both into Praxis-driven "augmentations", but some of them (e.g. hacking levels, bioelectric recharge and "Cybernetic Weapon Handling") are still passive, incremental upgrades, i.e. skills. Handling was consolidated as a general, rather than weapon class-related skill, but split into separate upgrades for sway, recoil and reload. The core idea is still the same, though, incremental stat-driven impact on shooting gameplay.

The improved feel of combat, in my opinion, is the result of better tuned weapons and of that skill impact being more subdued, though I think Montreal did take it a little too far for exactly the reason you mentioned - your combat experience doesn't benefit enough from investing in them. My ideal balance would probably be somewhere in between the original DX and DX4 though, admittedly, closer to the latter.

I see your point. Though the getting weaker over time bit applies to just taking on stronger enemies which Invisible War did and was absolutely terrible because of it. Those late game enemies were in some cases just unfair because it required you exclusively use the rail gun and only the rail gun to beat them. I do agree though that your character should remain fundamentally the same strength as the game progresses just for consistency sake with weapon tuning being the decisive factor as to how the player has progressed. Deus Ex did it wrong with the skill progression. The augmentations were a step in the right direction though should have been more vastly different in choice too many in all Deus Ex games are too samey and similar that they don't promote experimenting instead you just pick the optimal or perceived optimal rather than thinking "that might make for an interesting playstyle" System Shock 2 had the same problem with the psionics the choices you make don't matter beyond there are wrong choices and there are min-maxy everyone should pick them choices.

Nobody like playing with character growing weaker over time. Dont let anyone tell you otherwise.

For the sake of clarity, I'm not advocating for consistency between narrative and ruleset alone, but also between ruleset and gameplay as a whole.
Let me elaborate...

- Both Baldur's Gate I and Fallout I tell an archetypical hero's journey (with a fantastic twist at the end of the second game).
- The overall gameplay of both titles tells the same story (the hero, a promising but somewhat green individual, wanders the land, has many adventures and in the end finds his place in the world)
- The "zero to hero" framework is exactly what this kind of games needs. Narrative, ruleset and overall gameplay are perfectly aligned here.

- Deus Ex is essentially a sci-fi spy-story, one where the main character is supposed to be the pinnacle of the bio-engegnireeng technology of his time, a living weapon trapped inside a world of conspiracies.
- The overall gameplay, again, more Or less reflects this narrative: You as a player are tasked to complete a series of dangerous missions and uncover the aforementioned conspiracies while you are at it.
- The ruleset is still trapped in a "zero to hero" framework, though. Why? Because RPGs are supposed to be like that? Well no, not necessarily at least. The ruleset in this case should support the pure power fantasy that Deus Ex is about, making the player feel like a badass from the get go and giving him more toys, contacts and reliable source of information as he plays.

- For a more extreme example, let's imagine a Lovecraftian RPG, one where the main character is tasked to solve a disconcerting mystery and learn about an ancient ones in the process.
- In this game you should spend most of your time investigating and avoiding to die/become mad in horrific ways, right?
- Why on earth my character should grow stronger over time here? This is a pure disempowering fantasy, typical of the horror genre. The ruleset should support the fantasy and make me feel weaker over time, not stronger. I should finish the story like a derelict man, not the other way around.

In short, different fantasies require different gameplay systems and so different frameworks for the ruleset.

 

[Zeriel]

The fuck is wrong with you? CD Projekt makes the best console games available for the PC!

This is a PS5 game man!. A PS5 GAME!!!!!

Totally unrelated, but I have to say I find it hilarious all the console players crying that the PC version is heads and shoulders above the console ones since the console version is based around the old consoles and the "next gen patch" will only come next year. This was supposed to be THEIR TIME, when fancy-schmancy new consoles beat PC.

 

[RobotSquirrel]

The ruleset should support the fantasy and make me feel weaker over time, not stronger.

I think you're mistaking the sense of becoming weaker with game becoming more difficult. The issue is more when you have a player whom is over comfortable and has gamed the system so that they're no longer worried going into fights. I'll say the later parts of Deus Ex do that right especially with GMDX because you anticipate the commandos and they require a late game strategy to deal with normally in the form of switching to Assault Rifle as primary weapon with the Auto-Shotgun as the secondary. The game should keep you on your toes but the strategy you use should shift as the game progresses something Deus Ex nailed pretty damn well. That said my suggestions here also suggest a min-max way of dealing with it thus betraying "Playstyle matters" design mantra Deus Ex was built on because its doesn't actually matter it only did at the start of the game. Should be clear to anyone that plays Deus Ex that the ending was rushed. Same applies to Human Revolution as well which has easily the worst endgame even worse than Invisible War because it just amounts to fighting zombies which was just terrible.

Its interesting though we do need to find a way of progressing the "immersive sim" further than this. I feel like we've struck a lot of stagnation in the past 20 years (Todd can be blamed for most of that seeing as nearly everyone that makes them now follows his line of thinking, even Human Revolution did). There's a way forward and its a matter of finding it.

 

[Dr Schultz]

The ruleset should support the fantasy and make me feel weaker over time, not stronger.

I think you're mistaking the sense of becoming weaker with game becoming more difficult. The issue is more when you have a player whom is over comfortable and has gamed the system so that they're no longer worried going into fights. I'll say the later parts of Deus Ex do that right especially with GMDX because you anticipate the commandos and they require a late game strategy to deal with normally in the form of switching to Assault Rifle as primary weapon with the Auto-Shotgun as the secondary. The game should keep you on your toes but the strategy you use should shift as the game progresses something Deus Ex nailed pretty damn well. That said my suggestions here also suggest a min-max way of dealing with it thus betraying "Playstyle matters" design mantra Deus Ex was built on because its doesn't actually matter it only did at the start of the game. Should be clear to anyone that plays Deus Ex that the ending was rushed. Same applies to Human Revolution as well which has easily the worst endgame even worse than Invisible War because it just amounts to fighting zombies which was just terrible.

Its interesting though we do need to find a way of progressing the "immersive sim" further than this. I feel like we've struck a lot of stagnation in the past 20 years (Todd can be blamed for most of that seeing as nearly everyone that makes them now follows his line of thinking, even Human Revolution did). There's a way forward and its a matter of finding it.

Believe me, I've perfectly clear the difference between a difficulty curve and a framework for a ruleset. As a rule of thumb, no metter the genre, a difficulty curve is good when is shaped as an actual curve with its peak at the end of the game, because players are supposed to get batter at playing a particular game over time, but a ruleset can be shaped in a infinity of ways, and in this case the "right way" is the way that support better the fantasy that the game is trying to sell you.

At the beginning of Baldur's Gate you feel like a green adventurer and at the end of Baldur's gate 2 you feel like a god, and this is totally unrelated to the difficulty curve of the game. And obviously this is perfectly fitting for the Bhaalspawn saga.
At the beginning of a Lovcraftian RPG you should feel like a confident and perfectly healthy human being, while at the end you should be a broken man both in body and mind, again, in a totally unrelated way to the difficulty curve.
Different fantasies, different rulesets...

 

[laclongquan]

We wont argue about the WHY, we only tell you the facts.

Fact is: NOBODY like playing a character growing weaker over time. At least, nobody in enough number to even worth the effort of making a mod , let alone a full game. A game with that feature? it would have get modded out or patched out in no time flat.

2nd Fact: Chulthu is a niche genre. You make a chulthu-esqe (or Lovecraftian) game and maybe, maybe a small number of gamers will buy your game. Guarantee to get your effort thrown out of window and your company broken.

 

[Dr Schultz]

We wont argue about the WHY, we only tell you the facts.

Fact is: NOBODY like playing a character growing weaker over time. At least, nobody in enough number to even worth the effort of making a mod , let alone a full game. A game with that feature? it would have get modded out or patched out in no time flat..

False.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinner:_Sacrifice_for_Redemption

2nd Fact: Chulthu is a niche genre. You make a chulthu-esqe (or Lovecraftian) game and maybe, maybe a small number of gamers will buy your game. Guarantee to get your effort thrown out of window and your company broken.

False again.
I'm not surprised that in this forum very few users have noticed that, but horror games reached the peak of their popularity in recent years. A proper horror-themed RPG would have the same chance of succecc of any other non-fantasy RPG these days.

In short, the only reason because you are convinced that a RPG where you become weaker over time can't work is because you haven't played any. And you haven't played any because a couple of very old P&P systems influenced almost all the videogames that market themselves as RPG.

 

[AwesomeButton]

In short, the only reason because you are convinced that a RPG where you become weaker over time can't work is because you haven't played any. And you haven't played any because a couple of very old P&P systems influenced almost all the videogames that market themselves as RPG.

In some way, Pirates! is an RPG where you become weaker over time, because your character ages. It's a good concept that should be tried out more though - a story-integrated mechanic where the character becomes weaker in some areas as he gains experience and proficiency in other areas.