Cyberpunk 2077 Pre-Release Thread [GAME RELEASED, GO TO NEW THREAD]

[Squid]

You don't have to think it, the combat factually sucks.

I meant as in they think the entire game is garbage. Have what you will on your opinions of the combat. I could care less about that. I want opinions on it's options and roleplaying abilities.

 

[Zombra]

The problem with FP shooting is that you always have a targeting reticule on screen, which naturally makes people think and feel their shots should go to that point.

Making it wobbly or expand or anything similar is just a nonsensical attempt at patching something that is fundamentally wrong so it never really works. Although since most of the target audience are devolved superficial cretins addicted to superficial emotional triggers the games sell well enough and thats whats really important to various companies.

Reticule should be removed but then you hit the problem of FP PoV being distorted garbage, for which the targeting reticules are a patch - that dont work but just create further issues.

Idea: first-person RPG where iron sights aiming is disabled until your character reaches a certain skill level.

 

[Zer0wing]

Actually, the imposed first person only thingie brings much unglier and funnier comparisons

 

[Alienman]

Damn cool bullet impact thing on NPCs though. Wish modern game would have that.

 

[TheHeroOfTime]

 

[Trithne]

Just accept that any game where you attack by doing anything than directing your avatar to attack that guy isnt a real rpg and is an arpg with some c&c at best.

It pains me to say it, but i have to give Bethesda credit for _trying_ to move beyond applying the square peg of stats and dice to the round hole of first person perspective.

 

[typical user]

RPG skills in FPS game? Let's see what can be given to those who are more skilled with guns:
-less recoil and more tight reticule (so you can spray and pray or use single shots only)
-faster strafing when ADS
-can use more advanced weapons (like arming them, loading a magazine, pulling a trigger)
-quicker reload, unholster or unjamming
-better armor penetration (but no extreme numbers)
-ability to install mods (scopes, etc. on the fly without workbenches or stuff)
-visibile crosshairs, hit-markers, bullet count, weapon damage (more HUD assists)

Your accuracy and skill is not hampered in annoying way, you do not get more damage unless you applay ridiculous numbers (like beyond 50% additional damage to high level enemies with arm-pen). You can go crazy with stuff like smart ammo, energo-guns etc. (this topic is still centered around CP2077 right?)

The most dumb way to balance FPS is to splatter different damage numbers when you hit crap (Destiny I'm looking at you) or have your bullets magnetically pull in or out from your target based around your incompetence (hello Fallout 3, you ugly mfker).

We can have a good FPS-RPG. Devs only need to focus on those small details which add up. It doesn't need to be crazy like Arma or other warfare-sims.

 

[ItsChon]

I feel like a skill that increased effective range in terms of bullet drop would be dope too. This, of course, applies to games that have bullet drop, though even if your game doesn't, you can still just increase the raw numbers determining the maximum range of a gun.

 

[Zombra]

Plenty of shooters make sniping harder by having the camera "wander" when aiming. This could easily be applied to all weapons based on character skill. Silent Hill 1 did the same thing as I recall and it was cool. And of course if you're not aiming there's nothing wrong with having wild bullet spread.

This would also have the advantage of you really being able to see your character getting better as you put more points into stable shooting.

 

[Modron]

Plenty of shooters make sniping harder by having the camera "wander" when aiming. This could easily be applied to all weapons based on character skill. Silent Hill 1 did the same thing as I recall and it was cool.

Sounds like you want to play Mass Effect 1 again.

 

[undecaf]

RPG skills in FPS game?

Player-actiivated (and maintained) target lock that applies a diceroll on to-hit-chance as per target difficulty (with all relevant modifiers included). 2020 (iirc) had a mechanic where if you took aim and waited a round, you got a +1 there (I think you could wait even another round and get another +1, if you were still alive at that point). Put that on top. Not really a good shooter that way, clumsy and all, but fuck that, it'd be a more RPGish shooter and that's what matters.

 

[GrainWetski]

So much hype for just another shitty console FPS.

 

[rusty_shackleford]

Plenty of shooters make sniping harder by having the camera "wander" when aiming. This could easily be applied to all weapons based on character skill. Silent Hill 1 did the same thing as I recall and it was cool. And of course if you're not aiming there's nothing wrong with having wild bullet spread.

This would also have the advantage of you really being able to see your character getting better as you put more points into stable shooting.

alpha protocol

 

[Mr. Hiver]

Dont address me ever again, maggot. Go suck assholes at inxile. Thats all youre good for.



As to the subject at hand, i already said that whats fundamentally wrong cannot be fixed with additional measures, which means - NO mechanics of any kind can make it actually realistic and good.
First Far Cry remains the high water mark for weapon gameplay mechanics to this day when it comes to pure FP Shooters. You had decent range and enough space for it on the maps, enemies were deadly enough - at range too, recoil/bullet spread served just well enough to force you to pay attention instead of run and gun, and with further progression and better weapons you became just good enough at it naturally - by playing.

When it comes to attempts to slap RPG mechanics on top of FPS its even worse, because such games core gameplay mechanics reduce or remove the core mechanics that make RPGs what they are - which are limits of player skill influence on immediate ingame gameplay imposed by the character skills.

Since "aiming" in FPS games is solely dependent on the player skill, which is the core mechanic of such games, anything that distorts or lowers the player skill importance and influence just makes it worse.
Bit easier to do in various fantasy or fantasy futuristic settings because they provide more opportunity and plausibility for various kinds of magical unrealistic weapons, and similarly unrealistic defense or are based around melee combat and magic, but in FPS games that are based around current modern weapons and "realism" any RPG elements that affect the FPS core gameplay always fail.

In FPS/RPG hybrids the aiming and "chance to hit" should be left to pure player skill as much as in any pure FPS and damage should be the function of weapons alone.
Although of course, the HP systems used are completely retarded.

The best you can hope for in such hybrid abominations is that tacked on RPG elements dont ruin the whole core gameplay too much and that other features such as story, characters, visual and map design, setting, quest/mission design, tits and ass, etc. of the game will cover for it.

 

[Zombra]

NO mechanics of any kind can make it actually realistic and good.

That's very simplistic and arbitrary. Even if you disregard my ideas, typical user had some good thoughts last page that haven't been debunked, still allowing player skill to be essential for the FPS part of the game while allowing RPG statistics to affect secondary considerations.

And of course, "realism" should never be the primary goal in the first place.

 

[Mr. Hiver]

Your ideas are moronic diarhea and you are a dumb shitstain who cannot even comprehend what i wrote, although its very simplified.

I mentioned realistic considerations only because all of the suggestion to fix the fundamentally wrong problem are based on or around some sort of attempt to plaster some kind of realistic mechanics over it.
You dumb pathetic cretin.

And this is the last additional explanation i will write only because you are too dumb to comprehend what i did write already.
Which is a constant in that stupid skull of yours.

 

[Zombra]

Realism isn't the issue at all. If you agree that it shouldn't have been brought up in the first place, even by implication, why address it?

 

[Mr. Hiver]

Just fuck off and find somebody stupid enough to be on that full retard frequency running in your devolved brain.

 

[Shadenuat]

I guess I'm one of rare people who never had problems with being shit at guns with 0 gun skills in Deus Ex or VTM because, well I did not put any points into there and games would punish me for using stuff I had no ability with.

 

[Prime Junta]

I guess I'm one of rare people who never had problems with being shit at guns with 0 gun skills in Deus Ex or VTM because, well I did not put any points into there and games would punish me for using stuff I had no ability with.

The trouble is that you've got two design goals in conflict here. On the one hand, you're making a first-person action game, and presumably you want to make one that feels good and satisfying to play moment to moment. On the other, you're making a RPG, which means that yes, indeed, your ability to do stuff, including but not limited to killing things with boomsticks, ought to be defined and limited by your character's skills.

I feel very strongly that in a first-person action game, compromising the former in order to emphasise the latter is a bad decision. It'll make for a janky game. If it excels in other areas it might still be great -- VtM:B for example -- but it'll only really appeal to people who don't care much for the whole perspective thing.

So if you're making a first-person action game, that stuff has to come first, even if it dilutes the RPG-ness. Conversely, a purer RPG requires abstracted-out combat, which means it's just not well suited for first-person action. VtM:B, DX, or Alpha Protocol would have been better games if the combat had been less janky -- although perhaps they would not be thought of as RPGs at all, but rather as immersive sims, System Shock style.

Put another way, first-person games are either bad games, or weaksauce RPGs... unless they manage to sidestep or mitigate it by de-emphasising combat altogether in favour of other systems easier to abstract out without compromising core gameplay.

 

[Shadenuat]

If you want to be a master spray and pray, running & jumping, 180 no scoping while in the air and strafing at the same time (which is a classic "satisfying" shooter like Quake, and probably has very little to do with actual realism or "realistic" gunplay), then invest into skill and you can do just that. If you don't want to fight enemies at all, you can skip these skills in favour of stealth or hacking. Sounds perfectly reasonable to me. You don't ask why you can't hit for shit with a sword if you have base strength and not even a fighter in isometric game, usually.

Unless you are one of "those" people who do not understand abstraction and RNG at all, and are bothered that with 95% chance to hit, they still miss in X-COM or even Fallout 1. BUT IS 95%!! My dude is standing right near him? How did I miss?? RPGS ARE STOOPID

Deus Ex made me feel good, because at first I was shit, but then I could hit anything while jumping from building to building, wrapped in some nanofield, deflecting bullets like I am in the Matrix. Same with Morrowind, which had shit combat, but if you developed character you could do similar stuff - jump with spells like ninja and murder everyone in one hit with enchanted daikatana. Heck, with a simple knowledge that you have to fight with high level of stamina, Morrowind combat is not even that terrible - people just did not bother to study what affects your chance to hit (stamina is the first thing; but a lot of others as well - your skill, enemy skills and stats, armor quality, spell effects, enemy stamina, etc.); Morrowind's reputation comes more from people who don't know how to hit in the beginning, because they did not invest into fighting skills and stats, and tried to hit crap at 0 stamina.

Anyway, it's growth, development, it changes your perception on your character and the game itself. That feeling of jankiness and weakness in the beginning is an important stepping stone to joy you get later. Also, it is a goddamn simulation. Your skill is 0, so you get 0 result. Most players are baffled by the concept of course, often regardless if game is 1st person or not (Avellone trying to kill 50 wolves with 5 strength and no combat skills), and I wouldn't bother explaining what is the point of all this to them.

that stuff has to come first, even if it dilutes the RPG-ness

 

[Prime Junta]

Unless you are one of "those" people who do not understand abstraction and RNG at all, and are bothered that with 95% chance to hit, they still miss in X-COM or even Fallout 1. BUT IS 95%!! My dude is standing right near him? How did I miss?? RPGS ARE STOOPID

Abstraction is great in, say, isometric RPGs. Not so with first-person action games.

You'll only like abstracted combat in first-person games if you don't really care for, or about, first-person gameplay. If that's the case, then why make it a first-person game in the first place?

 

[Zombra]

I guess I'm one of rare people who never had problems with being shit at guns with 0 gun skills in Deus Ex or VTM because, well I did not put any points into there and games would punish me for using stuff I had no ability with.

The trouble is that you've got two design goals in conflict here. On the one hand, you're making a first-person action game, and presumably you want to make one that feels good and satisfying to play moment to moment. On the other, you're making a RPG, which means that yes, indeed, your ability to do stuff, including but not limited to killing things with boomsticks, ought to be defined and limited by your character's skills. I feel very strongly that in a first-person action game, compromising the former in order to emphasise the latter is a bad decision.

I couldn't disagree more. I don't know what "I would want" as a developer, but as a player I always want my choices of character building to matter. Different camera perspectives do not change this fact. Not every FPS has to make me feel like a SWAT ninja. When I play an RPG, I want the experience to change substantially based on my character's abilities. Often, depending on the game, I enjoy making a few different characters and having their mechanics work differently is always wonderful. A slow, clanking fighter who cuts through enemies with ease; a quick-moving, agile thief who can't take a direct confrontation; and an unathletic wizard who relies on powers to get by are my usual go-tos. The more my characters all play the same, the less interested I am in the game.

Remember when Todd Howard said "We're removing Athletics from Elder Scrolls, because why would anyone want their character to be slow? In Skyrim everyone is fast!" I've wanted to slap him a lot of times for a lot of reasons, but to me that was the most anti-RPG thing he ever said.

Again I'll mention Silent Hill, a game that deliberately had clunky controls to reflect its protagonist's non-military background. Knowing that this was absolutely intended made Harry Mason's frustrating struggle against the monsters very rewarding. Super responsive controls can be nice in some games, but they're really really not always necessary for a good game, even a real-time action game.

You'll only like abstracted combat in first-person games if you don't really care for, or about, first-person gameplay.

Sorry man, that's just dumb.

 

[Shadenuat]

Abstraction is great in, say, isometric RPGs. Not so with first-person action games

Judging by designers removing it from isometric games too (like removing misses in PoE and leaning to determenistic systems in PoE & DOS), and people raging on X-COM I'd say it's not so simple.

 

[Serus]

Unless you are one of "those" people who do not understand abstraction and RNG at all, and are bothered that with 95% chance to hit, they still miss in X-COM or even Fallout 1. BUT IS 95%!! My dude is standing right near him? How did I miss?? RPGS ARE STOOPID

Abstraction is great in, say, isometric RPGs. Not so with first-person action games.

You'll only like abstracted combat in first-person games if you don't really care for, or about, first-person gameplay. If that's the case, then why make it a first-person game in the first place?

There is no such thing as "first-person gameplay". First-person is just the perspective, a way to present the gameworld to the player. It can be used for any kind of gameplay. There are first person adventure games, crpg as well as shooters out there. Speaking of those, the word you are looking for is "first person SHOOTER gameplay". Just saying.