Cyberpunk

Having classes in a RPG is definitely too much freedom I'm glad they care more about transgender representation

Why does everyone want every faction to be joinable when Skyrim did that and it made for boring playthroughs

properly written structure/plot>the need to fulfil some autists fantasy in a sandbox

I didn't ask the question

Witcher 3 handled it quite well but geralt was a preset character who was definitely not a psychopath and thus wouldn’t butcher his lover in her room for her 5 gold pieces, it just doesn’t make sense for that kind of game.

Cyberpunk is probably going to be more that way, I would rather than branching stories where you side with one guy or another rather than just having the arbitrary ability to blap every important NPC in the game and soft lock your campaign

yournthe reason we get battle royals and shit like mass effect Andromeda

>thinks posting lazy pictures before the 404 with no argument is being right

get tilted nerd

How do you get a role playing game with no/little story?

>battle royals and ME Andromeda
>sandbox RPGs

Attached: 1541726973895.gif (211x177, 57K)

Dude I'll just headcanon everything but also I actually expect there to be branching gameplay options for every retarded decision I could possibly make

CDPR and Bioware use the same "cinematic storytelling" structure.

>YOU CAN'T KILL IMPORTANT NPCS THE GAME IS RUINED
>trailer literally shows you killing the quest nigga
Explain this, murderhobos.

Can someone give me an example of a good sandbox rpg within the last 20 years?

i mean, if they allowed you to kill npcs, it'd just lead to an early bad end where you OD in a back alley or some shit because you pulled a full henderson in derailing the story.
modern games don't allow for that due to retards quicksaving every half second. they'd all lose their files to the inevitable game over they'd be stuck with

I would like to know what people were realistically expecting out of this game? Not even being antagonistic genuinely curious. I think the direction they're taking it sounds fine but I was never too interested in the game to begin with (and Keanu jumping on board absolutely killed my hype cus I hate this Hollywood actor trend)

>what is rogue

>murderhobos

Attached: 1532979286573.jpg (570x474, 13K)

You don’t. That fag doesn’t even know the difference between a game built around a solid storyline and some half assed dungeon crawler built on a recycled engine from 2001

fable 2?

A turn based dungeon crawler, not a role playing game.

>Not even being antagonistic genuinely curious.
>Keanu jumping on board absolutely killed my hype cus I hate this Hollywood actor trend
sounds contrarian to me

Morrowind, the Gothic series, Age of Decadence

it has experience, treasure chests and goblins, it's an RPG

Have you even touched the game years after it got released?

5 years of silence is 5 years of people cooking up something with their imagination.

t. mad tranny contrarian butthurt about the poster

You don't have to dial back the story and characters if you just focus on the world surrounding the player and let them decide who they are and how to act. You can give them near total freedom at little to no sacrifice if you put enough effort in.

>But what if the story that the devs put in is ruined by a player action?

Then give the player an option to load a past save or persist in the doomed world that they've created.

I don't understand why it's such a controversial issue. You can have a good game either way you go. I know I'll probably try it regardless of what CDPR decides to do. Unless maybe they cuck on the tranny and other political shit. Pic unrelated, obviously.

Attached: DcZDvFoW0AA04Mp.jpg (1198x858, 111K)

>Hey guys I think we can make a game that people will love...

Attached: file.png (1851x1545, 2.07M)

> being stupid enough to confuse theme for mechanics

Attached: 1559083111691.jpg (576x559, 48K)

dude i haven't touch a game since i started browsing Yea Forums over 10 years ago. all i do is complain about them.
but seriously, nah i usually only play games once. big backlog.

We've already gone over this. Giving people the "freedom" to ruin their game is going to lead to retard normies fucking up their save and becoming frustrated.
Why are people surprised that they are idiot-proofing their game?

Said OPEN WORLD my dude

And?

Where's the open world though?

You dont have to dial back on anything, no such thing as too much freedom. Freedom is what videogames should focus on.

>You don't have to dial back the story and characters if you just focus on the world surrounding the player and let them decide who they are and how to act. You can give them near total freedom at little to no sacrifice if you put enough effort in.
How do you expect to do that at all? How you are not going to either simplify character and plot intricacies or write several versions of the plot that take into account the different combinations of dead characters? Do you even think about things before posting?
You downgraded the whole "choice" ideal so much that it literally turned into a message saying you can't play the game anymore, why the fuck would you want that if it's so gimped?

Imagine weeding through thousands of posts just looking for an excuse to attack a game over a tranny billboard. Get over it you seething retards

Don't buy the game if you don't want to play it.

They should have aimed to go the OS2 route where every quest can be completed by solving some sort of puzzle rather than talking to specific NPCs.

Then what’s the point of making the fucking game in the first place? Do you want a game or a bunch of assets randomly strung together

Normies aren't retarded. They know how to save a game. Hell, you could probably train a damn dog to do it when coming to a dangerous area/event.

No he didn't. He asked for a good sandbox RPG which those games are.

you can walk in several different directions at will

Classes is fucking shit. They are a template for absolute retarded who are too stupid to make idealized characters for themselves and have told what to do. Cyberpunk 2020 never functioned along those lines, roles are not classes but functioned along the same way as the general story in most RPG video games. Like Commander Shepard being a commander of a ship and nothing else, but him having the options to be an Adept, Engineer, or Vangaurd. When you give players a slough of options, make them customize the character attributes/skills according to how they visualize their character and who they want to be represented as, then you are doing roleplaying the RIGHT way because you can build up a story along the skills that make your character a person.

Attached: 800px_COLOURBOX9228474.jpg (800x532, 80K)

>Age of Decadence
>Sandbox
In what universe?
It is a stonetoss away from being a bundle package of CYOA games rather than one complete game.

Attached: 1484129742909.gif (257x200, 1.24M)

Exactly. Only open world/sandbox games you got are BOTW, Rockstar games and the other shit ones.

Why the fuck would spergs even want to kill all NPCs without a good reason. Go play fucking GTA or something you autists.

Are you retarded?

>Normies aren't retarded

Attached: George-Costanza-OCBD1.jpg (394x370, 46K)

>dude those progression based games are totally sandboxes

By that logic Max Payne and Call of duty are open world games.

Bethesda is trash at making storylines entirely. The only good quests they make are side quests. The factions are always trash because they don't interact with the world in meaningful ways

Wanting all NPCs killable is a cargo cult with no actual thought or reason behind it, together with people who think companions and miss chances need to be a thing.

>He said OPEN WORLD
>no he didn't
>Uh it's progression based doesn't count

Why are you moving the goalposts?

In your head. ME itself never acknowledged the players choice of skill, tactics, or build

Storyfags need to be gassed. I like a good story in a videogame, but gameplay and freedom is much more important.

no shit
>chose the wrong option
>end up in a shack where you get your ass beat to death
ok I'll just play a guy that can fight
>lol woops guess you suck at everything else in life
>also you still die because there's more than one enemy

I get what it was trying to do but fuck

test

Attached: book.png (1920x1080, 3.08M)

Fuck you. I want to spend hours killing NPCs and seeing how it cascades throughout my gameplay.

Wanting choice and consequences is a cargo cult with no actual thought or reason behind it, together with people who think dialogue options and ability customization need to be a thing.

>A sandbox is a style of game in which minimal character limitations are placed on the gamer, allowing the gamer to roam and change a virtual world at will. In contrast to a progression-style game, a sandbox game emphasizes roaming and allows a gamer to select tasks.

Get dunked on

Little angry there, bud. Use your brain. It's pretty simple. Any quest involving a character that's dead is failed (or succeeded if killing them was a goal) and you move on from there. Basically, if you do dumb shit you lose content. It's not as complicated as you're making it out to be. You act as if I expect a full blown butterfly effect kind of thing.

>Why the fuck would you want that?

Because I like to have the choice to do stupid shit in videogames. Is that really so wrong?

Wanting gampleay and freedom is a cargo cult with no actual thought or reason behind it, together with people who think difficulty and game overs need to be a thing.

Not as retaded as someone looking at Bethesda games and thinking they are good rpgs

You can have all the freedom and all the story. When it comes to absolutely essential story characters, you just have to make some characters stronger than others and make it so they they become weak to the player as they become irrelevant to the story. Or you can take my favorite approach.

Scale NPC power to story importance and then allow the player to kill them anytime. Make sure each death opens the door to another character. If the last essential character is killed, the game simply doesn’t have a story until you die in the inevitable event that you were supposed to prevent. Think FFVII but if you fuck around in Midgar the whole time Seph wins and all the player knows is that a meteor came out of nowhere and ended his game.

are you okay?

Which applies to Morrowind and Gothic. Why do you keep shooting yourself in the foot?

>How much freedom is too much freedom?
'Too much freedom' is just an analog of doing things wrong and without being able to do things wrong there is no opening for the player to do things right. Limiting freedom is the dev making decisions in place of the player.

>looking at Bethesda games and thinking they are good rpgs
That is pretty retarded yeah.

this, the choices in Skyrim fucked with it alot. You can't be the dragonborn and also be the dark brotherhood listener and the archmage of the college and the head of the theives guild etc, it makes no god damn sense. Contrast that with The Witcher 3, where you're Geralt, The Witcher, and nothing else, and the story and side quests are all consistent with that fact. It just makes for a better story experience. I still loved Skyrim and the other Elder Scrolls but you have to admit you can't have both unlimited freedom and a cohesive narrative, it's one or the other.

Bethesda games rely on you using your own imagination, and maybe that's allowed them to get really fucking lazy. Just look at their recent games.

>Limiting freedom is the dev making decisions in place of the player.
You clearly don't understand what goes into the making of a game, every "choice" needs to be explicitly programmed and accounted for.

>A role-playing game is a game in which players assume the roles of characters in a fictional setting.

Get dunked on

This. Your good decisions hold no weight if you're not permitted to make bad ones.

Dont see how thats an argument

I haven't seen anyone argue that every faction should be simultaneously joinable in this game. Being locked out of certain factions based on your choices is a natural consequence of these genre. OP is simply talking about killing NPCs.

Attached: b2f.jpg (680x447, 26K)

It's not an argument, it's an objective fact.

Yeah and?

Exactly my point. Skyrim is fun if you thoroughly RP your character and section them off for the sake of cohesion whereas in the Witcher you're always Gerald but the slight flexibility you're given allows the game to really make choices matter and stories flourish

>When Skyrim did it

They didn't though, and the factions they did have were just copies of each other. Only difference in theives guild vs DB was stealing vs killing. Only difference in the civil war was the color of your team. Literally a red vs blue dynamic. All choice in Skyrim is an illusion.

Dont see how thats an argument

>Skyrim is fun if you thoroughly RP your character

lol

People thought they were going to get a 3D CRPG adaptation of the Cyberpunk 2020 RPG that would finally provide competition for Bethesda in the sandbox CRPG market. Instead, they're getting a Witcher-esque action-adventure game with RPG mechanics set in the CP2020 world, which is understandably disappointing. Neither style of game is inherently better or worse, they're just different. In retrospect, this is the type of game CDPR is good at making, and this outcome isn't surprising.

Almost all characters in the The Witcher series are recurring and come and go throughout both side and main quests, killing any of them would mean almost the entire game is immediately locked out.
How would you reconcile that? CP2077 is very likely to have a similar narrative style, if they were to completely restructure it to something more compatible with freedom to kill then it's clearly not an easy job.

Problem with that is, we don't have two factions and a couple sub factions. We are going to have 7 main factions, probably of varying import.
How are you going to tell the normies that they are going to have to play the game 7 times to experience all the content you made?
You can avoid that all by forcing the MC to be freelance and work with most everyone with a smaller number of decisions that lock out other options.

both are important, a great game has an excellent story and excellent gameplay. No great game is lacking in one or the other

it's been floating around that people want to be able to join different factions. I don't think it's something this game needs. Although DLC centering around different factions would be cool, like a DLC about medias or cops or something.

it has experience, treasure chests and gangers, it's an RPG

There's literally nothing wrong with being able to join different factions and it's disingenous to equate that to joining every faction at the same time like in Skyrim

Bullshit, people let their imaginations run wild without much info on the game and now act like they already know how much input they have on the narrative.

No one piece of media did CDPR state that the game was a 1:1 adaptation of the TTG

The Gothic series, the two actually good ones at least, have unkillable NPCs. Morrowind technically doesn't but it has NPCs you can't kill without making the game unfinishable which amounts to the same.

New Vegas is an oddity in letting you kill every single character but even there is one exception: Yes Man.

As long as there's choice and consequence I don't care, that's the important part.

sure but it's not like it inherently adds anything to the game either. Would The Witcher 3 be better if you could join factions? No, it wouldn't even make sense. That's what CDPR is saying about this game.

This is the crux of the issue. Skyrim is a (poor, but uncontested) sandbox RPG, and sacrifices narrative to do that. You could argue that TW3 is much closer to an action-adventure game, just with heavy "RPG" mechanics, which allows it to have a much more cohesive narrative. I would additionally argue you could have compelling narrative in a Skyrim like game, but you would have to either make it completely orthogonal to player's larger choices, which is what Skyrim and Oblivion's better sidequests do, or heavily gate it and make it inaccessible if the player makes certain choices that would be at odds with the narrative, which Bethesda has been increasingly unwilling to do to make sure casual players don't miss content.

I would reconcile it by not making CyberWitcher.

I expected atleast some focus on factions in a way similar to new vegas. I'm fine with the game being like deus ex, but I'm pretty disappointed I can't play as a cop.

Voice acting in RPGs fucking sucks too because it inevitably limits the player's responses and stifles the creation quest/npc mods

>they're getting a Witcher-esque action-adventure game
Where did you get that from?

Everything I've seen still shows it as a better version of Fallout, with an actual engine.

>sure but it's not like it inherently adds anything to the game either.

What a retarded thing to say.

>There's literally nothing wrong with being able to join different factions
No, there is.
People like to be completists and join everyone, but a formal membership in groups, especially fucking street gangs, should absolutely be exclusive to each other.

Fuck off, manchildren are talking

So you agree that it's ok to dial back on story and character depth for the sake of freedom to kill.

It's not though, you don't have any proof it is. Stop talking shit.

So you're just going to deliberately ignore the second half of that post you're quoting out of context

it depends on the game. We have no idea what this game will actually be like, how can you say it would for certain enhance the game?

It's a lazy way to write a video game, but almost all the rpg games are like that so they get away with it.Having more features, endings and freedom of choice is never a bad thing.

>Bullshit, people let their imaginations run wild without much info on the game and now act like they already know how much input they have on the narrative.
How does that in any way contradict what I said? I said people thought, for whatever reason, not CDPR promised. I will say CDPR created this issue though, since this is what happens when you release a teaser right after you secure IP rights and let people theorycraft for half a decade.

murderhobo want death
murderhobo drink blood
murderhobo no hear boring
murderhobo only kill

Attached: 1547333484811.png (712x802, 284K)

sure but it's not like it inherently adds anything to the game either. Would The Witcher 3 be better if it had more features, endings and freedom of choice? No, it wouldn't even make sense. That's what CDPR is saying about this game.

Try using less straw.

>Where did you get that from?

Attached: anonisdumb.png (633x531, 492K)

It's okay, sure. But the reverse is also fine. It's just not necessary. Witcher is one specific way and the only way to change it would be to not make it Witcher. We're talking about the development of a whole new game. It doesn't have to be tied down to the same structure as CDPR's past work.

I like it when important npcs are killable, causes more replay ability for me and funnier moments. For example: quest is to kill a guy for horse fucking, but you killed the guy hours earlier for taking your horse gf, so your character is like "uhhhhhhh, already done." It also makes it that if I hate a mission, I know who to kill to make it end quicker. But I see how people can bitch and complain about it to the point of not playing the game.

Attached: kOz-Hmzt7ek.jpg (400x544, 61K)

They referred to it as an open world RPG on their twitter page before they changed the account's bio.

What’s the limit to adding shit and getting the game out? What the arbitrary limits you have for a game?

I didn't say it was, brainlet. Read the conversation before commenting.

Both are wrong for different reasons. The factions are by nature exclusive, so if we were formally joining any of them, then we should be locked out of the other factions. That's 6/7 main factions you are locked out of per playthrough. That means that if they all have significantly different stories and missions, then you would have to play the game seven times to experience all the content.
Not to mention it would be silly to end the game with nomads or street shits somehow ruling the city because you chose to side with them.

And why did they change it, retard?

>it doesn't have to be good
>but they need to add these arbitrary features with dubious benefit I want

Choice and consequence is completely arbitrary and isn't needed in a role playing game.

>Witcher-esque

I'll say it again, where did you get the idea it was witcher-esque? I'm also seeing words like CUSTOMISATION - SKILLSET, PLAYSTYLE, EXPLORATION. Those are staples of the RPG genre.

You'd have to ask them.

So you're just going to continue ignoring the second half of my post for the sake of argument. Alright.

>That means that if they all have significantly different stories and missions, then you would have to play the game seven times to experience all the content.
That isn't a bad thing.

Then CD Projekt games are not for you.

Grasping for Straws 2077

>As long as there's choice and consequence
aka arbitrary features with dubious benefits

>I'll say it again, where did you get the idea it was witcher-esque?
That it is developed by CDPR, and because everything they have said about it indicates it will be a similar game to TW3, rather than a sandbox RPG.
> I'm also seeing words like CUSTOMISATION - SKILLSET, PLAYSTYLE, EXPLORATION. Those are staples of the RPG genre.
DOOM (2016) has customization, skillsets, playstyles, and exploration. In fact many modern games regardless of genre incorporate those things to varying degrees. Does that make DOOM an RPG?

I'm not ignoring it you fucking retard, you can't lock players out of 6/7 of the game because of a faction choice.
Just because we would enjoy it doesn't mean it would be a smart developer decision.

I'm not saying they need to do anything. Try and read more than one part of a conversation.

Attached: 1557353507041.gif (480x270, 1.08M)

I think killing important NPCs is the only kind of freedom that really matters since it represents the player's ability to force key changes in how the story unfolds
I don't want every faction to be joinable. I'd just like 3 or so.
>Why does everyone want every faction to be joinable when Skyrim did that and it made for boring playthroughs
No one wants that specifically. That was a situation where the faction meant little and there was no limit on how many the player could join.
People want to be able to join factions in a meaningful and consequential way, where it affects how the world reacts to you in both beneficial and hurtful ways
Normies seem fine with being locked out of shit due to choices. It makes their playthrough feel special and they can share stories with their friends that feel unique

How is that grasping for straws? I'm just telling you the facts.

>ignore what they have in their twitter bio and steam page

All of these things are stuff that are already included in the game.

The game isn't linear, the game does have faction choices and player demanding decisions. As explained in the recent demo by the developers themselves. There is a point where you encounter a corpo agent after wiping out the Animals hideout and they tell you that there was an option of either joining the corpo guy after being betrayed by the Voodoo Boys, or give the Voodoo Boys the benefit of the doubt, kill the corpo guy, and have the story branch out from that part of the line.

In terms of classes and roleplay, not only how you want your character represented, like being a Nomad, Corpo, or Street Kid and those options dictating how you encounter/approach scenarios where you look for the thing that is beneficial for your character/run from talking your way into security as a Corpo and dealing with gang influence with Street Kid, but you have to make siding choices from choosing who to trust and live with those consequences.

stop with this kikey falseflagging retard, it's obnoxious

There is a difference between being locked out of some small things and missing out on 6/7 of the game with a playthrough.
I don't have a problem with it, but that isn't going to fly with mainstream audiences.

>I'm not ignoring it you fucking retard,
I literally said it's disingenous to equate joining to joining every faction at the same time like in Skyrim, and you responded as if I said factions shouldn't be exclusive to each other. So yes you did ignore it, moron.

>you can't lock players out of 6/7 of the game because of a faction choice.
Good thing you don't have to in order to allow players to join different factions and have it being meaningful, moron.

>That it is developed by CDPR, and because everything they have said about it indicates it will be a similar game to TW3, rather than a sandbox RPG.

youtube.com/watch?v=RfmB1eoyzwY
youtube.com/watch?v=xx8kQ4s5hCY

...What the fuck are you on about?

>where did you get the idea it was witcher-esque
Probably due to the fact that it's developed by the same team that made the Witcher? That might have something to do with it.

>it represents the player's ability to force key changes in how the story unfolds
Have you ever played a game with actual choices and consequences? There are far better ways of influencing a story than "lol guy is randomly dead and you can't do his self-contained questline anymore".

>if i don't agree with it then it's kikey falseflagging

stay titled cause you know i'm right autist

He's a shitposting faggot is what the fuck he's on about. CDPR has basically shat on Witcher 3 in interviews, saying that CP2077 has significantly more depth, but he's going to ignore that because his life is shitposting.

They seem to place a lot of emphasis on how they want to write a set and pre-defined character personality for the player.
Also there's a weird fixation on the idea of what a "Cyberpunk" is, especially given that there's no such thing as being a "Cyberpunk."
Cyberpunk is a genre term referring to how you juxtapose high-end technology with the breakdown of traditional social order and institutions. It's not really an adjective of the people in a cyberpunk setting.
But CDPR seems really attached to this idea of what a "Cyberpunk" is and that it's all about freedom and XYZ. And it sounds a lot like how they talked about what it meant to be a Witcher. I think, in their heads, 2077 is just the Witcher and being a Cyberpunk is a profession the player will have

I didn't say to ignore it. I'm just letting you know they changed the description on their official twitter page from RPG to action-adventure. If anything that's the opposite of ignoring it.

Then state opinions like an adult male instead of ironic passive-aggressive faggotry.

If this is the direction they're taking the game it will not have more depth than the Witcher 3 I guarantee that

Are you legitimately retarded? I'm serious. I think you might be. TW3 and CP2077 in those clips appear to be in the same genre. Unless you want to argue the camera choice or combat options changes the genre from being action-adventure, in which case you're retarded.
>the amount of depth determines style of game
You ok, bro?

see

freedom if you give a shit about telling a story is ALWAYS retarded

the problem is most people who make these games are autistic, so whatever story they use is always drenched in autism. cyberpunk is going to be a really great example of that. just look at the shit they've released already

Yeah, I've seen the gameplay video. It looks like a Cyberpunk game developed by CDPR. Not sure what that post is trying to prove.

unironically new vegas

>Have you ever played a game with actual choices and consequences?
sounds like arbitrary features with dubious benefits to me.

It doesn't need to be 6/7 of the game.
You don't need to have entirely new main stories laid out. There can still be a central campaign with factions you can join on the side that add some adjustments to how the main story plays out, affecting who helps you or how certain characters react to you, allowing you to handle situations differently or making situations more difficult.

>Telling me to reference a post I replied to
Fucking NPCs.

Or they are just employing basic marketing branding and liberally using the very popular name "Cyberpunk" to really drive it down home, I'd say the name alone is 80% of the reason why they wanted the IP.

You’re holding a statement made early in the design period accountable for the final product in spite of the fact they corrected it to a statement closer to what they are designing.

In other words:
>Dey said they did the thing but now they do the other thing, they bad ‘cuz they didn’t do the thing

>But CDPR seems really attached to this idea of what a "Cyberpunk" is
Woah... are you telling me that CDPR made a game based on a particular universe and man's idea of a Cyberpunk world from his tabletop game?? Are you telling me that CDPR isn't giving you fags you idea of a Cyberpunk world because they are making a PARTICULAR Cyberpunk world?

Attached: 1537465807741.png (347x319, 219K)

>changes the genre from being action-adventure

Explain to me how TW3 isn't an RPG and then explain what you think an RPG is.

actual autism lo l get mad nerd

I've seen the gameplay man.
But it looks like more of an FPS action game with nu-DX three-style approach (tech, combat, stealth) than a first-person RPG.
I realize the difference eludes you and I also acknowledge it could end up being very different at launch (the multiple starting missions based on background is really encouraging) but at the moment, I'm not seeing anything to indicate there's a bigger emphasis on roleplaying than action and combat

One time in Oblivion I was doing an archer build. The Master archer trainer randomly died in a field from a botched hunt; therefor, was dead in the game forever. I have really mixed feelings about that, and I from that point forward realized that true freedom in a game means you can ruin your game permanently. I don’t know...

Wtf, is that Pudding?

it doesn't have goblins

Forget the story and the change from RPG to action adventure; will this game even be fun?

I'm holding the game's description that they changed recently on their twitter page accountable

>In other words:
>hurrr i am silly

This is low even for you.

You can write a story in a way that alows player freedom and roleplaying. Look at New Vagas, which is a template for modern player driven games. 3D RPGs will never give you as much freedom as classic RPGs though.

I'm saying that both are wrong for different reasons you retard. It was less egregious in Skyrim because most factions weren't so openly hostile to each other. It would be much worse in this, plus it presents a massive storytelling and game development obstacle if you can join a faction and get locked out of the rest of the game. Each district has it's own gang and it wouldn't even make sense for you to be able to stick with one all the way through.

It's a year out and we still know little about what the actual game will end up entailing yet everyone is shitposting it to death and being doom-and-gloom about how it's DOA

I know it's a pipe dream, but I wish more threads were like the comfier DMC threads pre-5 release

What a pathetic attempt at a strawman.

NV doesn't have a good story.

That's basically what the game already is, but with previous choices rather than an official faction doing it.
Plus you would just get everyone bitching that every faction leads to the same thing

So you're just going to continue ignoring the second half of my post for the sake of argument. Thanks for proving my point you disingenuous cunt.

No, I'm saying that it sounds like CDPR doesn't actually know what the word "Cyberpunk" means since they're attaching it to a person which it has NEVER been used as before, because it's a description of a genre and not of people.
For instance, no one has every referred to a character as being a steampunk. Because that'd be stupid, there's no such thing as A (singular) steampunk.
But CDPR's insistence on the use of it as a category the player falls into makes me think that they think that there is a specific role or profession called 'cyberpunk' and that there is a specific type of person who is a 'cyberpunk' which is completely wrong

Utter fucking retard without any reading comprehension, fitting image.

kenshi, with bonus points for zero story

>plus it presents a massive storytelling and game development obstacle if you can join a faction and get locked out of the rest of the game

Good thing you don't have to in order to allow players to join different factions.

I mean you're 50% right and 50% retarded. you're right that CDPR have no idea what cyberpunk as a genre is though

NV has a great story trapped inside an RPG with bad gameplay.

I’m a different (you), moron

DMC games care about the gameplay so there's nothing to worry about beyond autists screaming about the main character. This game is probably going to be a chore to play and with people realizing their projected fantasies are just fantasies it's leading to spergouts

You can kill all NPCs in Morrowind and still finish the game though. It will just be a pain in the ass.

>gameplay footage comes out
>HOLY SHIT DAY 1 PRE ORDERED GET HOYPE!

>People complain about lack of RPG choices
>it's not even released yet you have to wait another year!

Can't have it both ways. Either reserve all judgement until the full release or let people have their prejudices good and bad

Stop pretending you are making an argument. If you could join factions, then you DO have to make them significantly different, otherwise people will rightfully point out that there is no significant difference between them. Therefore you are locked out of 6/7 of the game by joining a faction.
You can't make them "kind of different" but you just do almost the same thing whichever one you join.
That doesn't even make sense from a gameplay perspective since each faction will primarily only operate out of one district.

Well, you HAVE a city to burn.

>because it's a description of a genre and not of people.
Nigger, Mike Pondsmith uses Cyberpunk to mean a singular person in the very interviews he makes. He calls your character a Cyberpunk, along with calling the genre Cyberpunk, along with calling his game Cyberpunk. The name of the fucking game is not because they are calling it a general fucking genre retard, it's the name of the very fucking tabletop.

youtube.com/watch?v=Ut80REYhyPQ&t=5s

>Morrowind technically doesn't but it has NPCs you can't kill without making the game unfinishable which amounts to the same.

That doens't make it the same. And you can still finish Morrowind so you're wrong.

Thanks fellow bonedog. The post was actually just an elaborate attempt to get someone to bring up kenshi.

Story that allows you to define your character and gives you as much roleplaying freedom as possible is a good story for an RPG video game. This comes from p'n'p ancestors, sweaty neckbeard GM couldn't write a good story but they could compensate for that by not railroading and giving players freedom to have fun and roleplay.

Just go tell the bloods that you're also a crip, I'm sure they won't mind

or, or or. Fuck you I get everything I want.

Attached: Mr_L_Render.png (1139x1663, 630K)

Sure. But I'm mostly just pointing out that what people want isn't 7 campaigns in one, but some side activities that could come into play in the main-story.
Also, one of the biggest draws of the TTRPG was how those factional roles (Cops, Media, Fixer, Corp, Rockerboy, etc) gave a lot of flavor to the kind of character and kind of non-violent resources and methods you had access to.
>Plus you would just get everyone bitching that every faction leads to the same thing
Possibly, I think it depends on how they were handled. If it was integrated such that each faction you could join was connected directly to the main story, yeah, that would piss people off. However, if the factions were primarily a side-quest-line type affair that you can pursue alongside the main story missions, I don't think people would expect their faction choice to radically change the outcome (since I'm going to assume the main quest already has options available to the player on how they want to finish it)

Just because you willfully ignore part of my argument because it inconveniences yours doesn't mean my argument isn't there.

>If you could join factions, then you DO have to make them significantly different, otherwise people will rightfully point out that there is no significant difference between them. Therefore you are locked out of 6/7 of the game by joining a faction.

This is literally not an argument. You don't have to be locked out of the majority of the game in order to implement factions that are meaningfully exclusive to one another.

>Explain to me how TW3 isn't an RPG
Easy, because you play as Geralt of Rivia, who is a predefined character with a long and detailed backstory. You can make choices based on how you think Geralt would react to new and morally gray situations, but you are ultimately playing as Geralt. Likewise, in CP2077, you play as V, who CDPR has revealed as being a rather well defined character in their eyes, and, again, you can make choices, but ultimately you are playing as CDPR's V. In contrast, a dedicated RPG would allow you to create your own character, or, at the very least, allow you to choose from an array of differing characters. Since TW3 and CP2077 don't do this, and you are confined to playing as Geralt and V as they progress through the adventure CDPR has created specifically for him/xir, they are action-adventure games, that borrow liberally from the RPG genre, which many modern games do. For example, GTA IV and V allow you to make choices in their overarching narrative, but that does not make them RPGs.

Despite what redditors think, "cyberpunk" isn't a genre about blade runner clones.
Also it's a commonly used term in the Cyberpunk IP, it also has plenty of literal cyber punks and things redditors will find cringe and outdated like mohawk bikers and a gang of clowns.

>if you can't join opposing factions at the same time you're locked out of the rest of the game
That's retatrded user. You're retarded.

>You can make choices based on how you think Geralt would react to new and morally gray situations

So you're roleplaying as Geralt then lol

I rescind my comments then. I suppose they picked it up from Pondsmith.
I'll withhold judgement on whether the game is leaning more into RPG or more into action-game territory when it comes out.

So Zelda isn't an RPG then. How will nintend rones ever recover?

Correct

Attached: 1559969735105.jpg (600x180, 21K)

If you aren't locked out of the rest of the game, then that means the factions aren't different, if the factions aren't different, then people will bitch about all the factions being the same and your 7 factions being near pointless

>>And you can still finish Morrowind so you're wrong.
Why are you fucking lying? The game even tells you to reload or else your game is fucked and all you're going to do is just wander around doing fuck all.

Attached: ded.jpg (1280x960, 304K)

It's an action game where you play as an existing character.
It's as much an RPG as Shadow of Mordor or LA Noire
Of course Zelda isn't an RPG. I thought most people agreed it was an action-adventure game

>This is literally not an argument. You don't have to be locked out of the majority of the game in order to implement factions that are meaningfully exclusive to one another.
You literally do, you are wrong.
You are either going to end up telling an almost identical story with a different flair 7 times, or they are different enough that you literally have to play the game 7 times to experience all the content.

I guess it's subjective. If you google "RPG GAMES" or "ROLEPLAYING GAMES" TW3 and CP2077 will both come up.

>Sure. But I'm mostly just pointing out that what people want isn't 7 campaigns in one, but some side activities that could come into play in the main-story.
I thought it was assumed that if you were "joining" a faction, then you would be working entirely for that faction. What you're asking for is literally what you are getting in the game, except you can't formally join the factions.

Yes, but that's true of virtually every video game that has characters. Is Call of Duty an RPG because you can roleplay as Soap Mcwhatshisface? Is GTAIV an RPG because you can roleplay as Niko Bellic and decide how he would react to certain situations?

Geralt is literally designed as a self-insert character with a wide range of moral possibilities, more so than most games with blank slate characters, you think it's not role-playing because he has a rich backstory which is actually something role-players enjoy as it allows them to immerse themselves into the character better rather than being some random murderhobo that doesn't belong in the game's world.

>If you aren't locked out of the rest of the game, then that means the factions aren't different,
That's retarded user. You're retarded.

Most games have RPG influences but it's not a core mechanic like the Witcher 3 where literally every quest barring the monster hunts give you the opportunity to choose what you say or do

No you fucking don't. You are completely wrong and you don't know what you're talking about.
>they are different enough that you literally have to play the game 7 times to experience all the content.
Yeah how dare they add meaningful choices and consequences in an RPG
Stop posting.

Not really.
The main thing is having the factions react to each other in particular ways. For instance, if you're playing a cop but you're also siding with the local gang on something, you can be presented a choice with who you side with in that situation and then the game will adjust accordingly to who you choose and go down a different path where you either side with the gang members (but have to kill your fellow cops and are hunted by cops who recognize you) or you side with the cops and you go down whichever path the game has set for if you oppose that gang during that story quest.
Ideally, the main quest should have the most branches anyways since it's the only one that HAS to matter, even with faction shit.
So then you apply the same thinking of how factions would work as if they were any other sort of condition on an event

bladerunner was unironically 40000% more cyberpunk than whatever garbage GTA incarnation we're dealing with in c77

>Easy, because you play as Geralt of Rivia, who is a predefined character with a long and detailed backstory
That doesn't mean it's not an RPG.

>not being able to kill NPCs amounts to the same as being able to kill NPCs because you can't reach the main ending

You're wrong.

Nah. "joining" a faction shouldn't be some completionist bullshit that barely changes anything. You join a faction, you side with that faction. They shouldn't end up just riding your coat tails to the end of the game.

CP2077 isn't a RPG though, it's an action adventure game. CDPR even went out of their way to change the game's description.

>Geralt is literally designed as a self-insert character
user... Geralt was created literally over 30 years ago. CDPR did not design him. His moral code is well defined in the books, and is interesting enough to allow for ambiguity and differing interpretations, which CDPR exploits in the games to allow for a wide degree of choice.

Attached: 8b9.jpg (500x647, 46K)

Yes, it does.

But you can kill NPCs in Cyberpunk 2077, they even fucking confirmed it by saying that you can drive through a crowded street if you wanted to, and in doing so depending on the world you're at and if it's rundown or run by corpos, gangs or police officers will come to avoid heat from the turf or take you down to keep the peace.

You just agreed with me in a cunty fashion.
Also yes the book character is also a self-insert but naturally there are no interactive choices there.

Joining a faction doesn't need to lock you out of the majority of the game either. Not every faciton involves siding against every other group in the game. Your argument is a black and white fallacy between "join all the factions" and "side with a faciton and everything in the game that faction isn't involved in is locked out"

>if you're playing a cop but you're also siding with the local gang on something, you can be presented a choice with who you side with in that situation and then the game will adjust accordingly to who you choose and go down a different path where you either side with the gang members (but have to kill your fellow cops and are hunted by cops who recognize you)
That would be retarded. I don't even want that level of retarded "freedom" in games.
>The main thing is having the factions react to each other in particular ways
That's more or less how the faction system already works, you just can't join anyone formally because logically that would mean you exclusively work for them.

Wait but CD Projekt also said TW3 was an RPG but people here say it isn't.

Attached: file.png (645x156, 34K)

Maybe, I don't know how it would go down maybe if you killed everyone you would never get to Ciri and the game just ends with you coming to realize you just doomed the world.Though with Withcer 3 you are playing a set guy so it's harder to do but with 2077 it shouldn't be that hard.

I don't have an arbitrary list but a kill everyone run should always be possible, regardless of the story game devs want to tell, it doesn't take away anything from the game as it's not a route most players would do.Though I understand that it's getting harder and harder to do stuff like that with each passing year as games are getting more and more complex but if anyone can do it it's a big studio like CDPR.

No it doesn't. You can still play an RPG with characters who have a predefined backstory.

Players want meaningful choices and consequences, but they don't want to have to play the game 7 times to experience the full content of the game. And if the factions change so little that you aren't missing out on the content, then what was the point of joining a faction if it changes so little?

You can't change the character's hair color, it's not an RPG

It depends on how much work you're (the developer) willing to do. I don't see naratively it being that hard to simply have someone else within an organization step in to fill the role of the person killed. Now the actual work that goes into making that happen on a technical level, that could be some extra time or expenses that you might not want to spend on something that leads the game in the exact same direction anyway.

Too much freedom, in a game? I would say if the resources are available no amount of freedom. Even if it was possible to just kill everyone in the city and totally fuck up the narrative of the game it doesn't really matter because you can just replay it.

We're talking about quest essential NPCs. Try to keep up

>Not every faciton involves siding against every other group in the game
It literally does, though. They are all rival gangs. At best you cooperate with one other gang.
It still doesn't even make any sense to have street kids or nomads ending up running the city because you decided to join them

>You can still play an RPG with characters who have a predefined backstory.
Characters, plural, yes, character, singular, no.

Fuuuuuck lol if they advertised the Witcher 3 as an RPG and this as an action adventure game, this is going to have no depth to it whatsoever. But they got John Wick legendary fortnite character so it's all ok right?

Attached: d3.webm (1444x1856, 980K)

Well, but formally joining factions and getting perks or some sort of skill for joining with them is the kind of thing I'd personally really like.
Along with having main-story quests and certain other side quests react differently.
It doesn't have to be 7 entirely different campaigns, especially if the actions of other entities continue as normal.
Let's say there's just 4 factions you can formally join in the game: the local police force, a fixer's syndicate, an up-and-coming subsidiary within a major megacorp and the local revolutionary rockerboy group. Let's suppose the main story has to do with the Arasaka megacorp's attempts to get the Silverhand chip that Dex has you grab and you're trying to figure out what the chip is and what you ought to do with it.
If the story already assumes you're acting as an independent agent, then incorporating your faction choice into the main story would simply be a mix of a social mechanic as well as your faction coming to help you (or a counter-faction coming to hurt you) in story beats, such as the cops coming to help you if you're pinned down by some megacorp goons or gangs attacking you on-sight because they realize you're a cop. Things that can have consequence but that may also lead to existing paths within that narrative tree

People who say TW3 isn't an RPG are wrong. I was specifically talking about CP2077.

If the game doesn't start at the moment of birth then your character has a predefined backstory which means it's not an RPG.
That means Fallout 3 is the only true RPG.

>I don't see naratively it being that hard to simply have someone else within an organization step in to fill the role of the person killed
That's because you are thinking of characters as simply flat quest givers when CDPR characters are always far more than that and have complex motivations and interactions with other characters and you.

The game is still being advertised as an RPG though, in the very fucking stores that people go to and select to pick up these games.

Attached: gog_cyberpunk_2077.png (1267x555, 233K)

If you want meaningful choice and consequences, then you won't be able to experience 100% of the game's content in only one or two playthroughs. You can't have it both ways.

Except CDPR explicitly said there's no faction system in the game. There's no allegiance spectrum system (that I know of, keep me honest here if there's a source saying otherwise) at all. The only thing that represents how factions treat you is your street-cred, which is a binary value that is based on your gear's total street cred level.
If I'm wrong about any of this, feel free to correct me so I stop spouting lies

C U N N Y

>Reminder this game isn't an RPG

I actually got sick of underlining things.

Attached: file.png (3512x1125, 879K)

>Well, but formally joining factions and getting perks or some sort of skill for joining with them is the kind of thing I'd personally really like.
I fully expect that is what we will get for repeatedly siding with certain groups

No it doesn't. Not every single faction is directly opposed to one another.

can a niggy get sum sauce 'fore your vacation?

Plural or not it's irrelavent. Playing a game as a character with a predefined backstory does not disqualify the game as an RPG.

If the gangs' storylines were in depth enough to warrant formally joining a faction and being locked out of most interactions with other factions, then we are talking about potentially drastically different stories, not just seeing the other side of a branching decision.
And if they aren't that different, then it doesn't feel warranted to be formally joining factions when all you are getting are some perks and side quests, especially when they should thematically be locking you out of much more

Sure, because everyone who got into video games in the year 2005 qualifies "RPG" as having a level-up system.
I consider the qualifier of whether a game is an RPG or not is whether or not the player is choosing the role they want to play in the story. This can be within the constraints of the campaign set up by the devs (see: Shadowrun HK and DF) but it also demands a certain level of consequence to your actions.
My biggest concern with 2077 is that the only choices the player will actually be given are a handful of decisions during story beats ala end of Human Revolution/ME3, as well as how to handle conflicts (also using HR as the template here, with specific options for stealth, combat and tech solutions)
That seems like an extremely safe and boring approach for this project in my mind

How you handled one interaction can still affect another. So I imagine there will be pseudo faction rep based on how you handled something, branching off to maybe getting some sort of bonus.

And I'm saying, based on CDPR's own words, that that won't be the case because they've stated explicitly that there is no system for measuring your allegiance or affinity with one faction or another
They're just quest providers, it seems, and nothing more

They mostly are, though. They are all street gangs (and corpos)

>If the gangs' storylines were in depth enough to warrant formally joining a faction and being locked out of most interactions with other factions, then we are talking about potentially drastically different stories

Which is part of seeing the other side of branching decisions.

This is akin to complaining about CYOAs and the fact you won't experience the game's content in one playthrough. The story changing based on your choices is a natural consequence of the choices you make.

Maybe
That would be nice. I'm guessing, if anything like that exists, it'll be in the form of the player's interactions with specific NPCs from the factions.

At the very least I prefer you are able to kill important NPC's then have it game over, or tell you you can't complete the story, RATHER than just have invincible npcs like in skyrim (although skyrim has great freedom in some ways compared to many games)

The story in Skyrim is retarded

>They mostly are.

In other words, not really.

I'm not getting that vibe at all. Still better to have lower expectations instead of hyping the shit out of something.

Thinking about it now, only Betheshit games had you join factions. In VTMB throughout the entirety of the game you were a lacky for the Camarilla and it was only towards the end when you were put on a decision course where you aren't joining anyone but deciding on who runs the city where the carrying process was the same except for missing out on storming the tower or storming the Keui Jin, in Baldur's Gate you never joined anybody but spend doing tasks for organizations you encounter or people who needed help, in Fallout 1 you never joined a faction, your whole goal is the find a water chip for your vault and that entails SIDING with people who you think can bring that means to an end and moving on. And the this is how it was throughout the entire length in all of these games and never having the option but just choosing moralistic outcomes. People are ready to jump and call these titles RPGs and masterpieces, but when it comes to Cyberpunk 2077 because you can't automatically choose one faggy gang to join throughout the entire game, and defeats the purpose of you being a merc when you are siding with people dedicating immediately for their tenets, it's bad, a flop, and not an RPG.

Attached: nervous_laughter.jpg (249x276, 21K)

Also,
>and being locked out of most interactions with other factions

Siding with a faction doesn't necessitate being locked out of most interactions with everyone else. There are more ways to interact with NPCs than just siding with them or being hostile towards them.

A sci-fi game that isn't trash like every other game past ME1
Also fuck cover shooters, if this ends up being just another stupid cover shooter, I'll give it a hard pass. Them making it FP gives me hope that it won't be.

CDPR should drop the character creation and make the slav the canon V, it would make the game better and allow for more appropriate and intimate dialogue.

Half the RPGs where you can pick sides also have a win condition that you can just finish to complete the game regardless. Like Morrowind you only need to kill Dagoth Ur to finish the game.

That poster must have triggered all the ugly trannies. Which is all of them

>Thinking about it now, only Betheshit games had you join factions.

Attached: 1502441861405.jpg (814x500, 49K)

Because the Cyberpunk TTRPG was really popular for how it codefied the various archetypes seen in Cyberpunk media into mechanical and societal roles.
There's a reason every thread prior to the E3 footage had that list of roles presented as OP, since it's arguably the most interesting thing about the setting.
The real question is why is the DM forcing me to play a merc? Mercs are boring in 90% of sessions. This isn't fun, I'm going home

Eh it's got melee and stats. So I'm guessing you can just run around and stab voodoo niggers or be an ubertank and eat shotgun shells for breakfast.

from the autists who think a 14 year old GTA universe looks badass this is a compliment, ty

>That would be retarded. I don't even want that level of retarded "freedom" in games.

Attached: 04d.jpg (272x285, 12K)

I was expecting something a bit like Witcher 3, but where you can choose to be something other than the Witcher and you get a different set of side-quests based on your choice. Similarly, you get different ways to handle situations based on the group you joined.
Be a cop? Handle both high-profile busts as well as more mundane activities where you use your authority (and ability to read a situation) to push civilians into giving into your requests.
Be a corp? Help manage company business by managing projects as well as "smooth over" merger negotiations.
I suppose I was just expecting something bigger in scope

>DM forcing me to play a merc? Mercs are boring in 90% of sessions. This isn't fun, I'm going home
Read this

Why is the DM forcing me to play as a Camarilla lacky in Vampire the Masquerade Bloodlines?

Why is the DM forcing me to play as a Vaulter looking for his vault's water chip in Fallout 1?

Why do I have to be the chosen one in this game? Why do I have to play the entire game as the chosen one who has to defeat the evil guy? Why can't I be an average joe who works for the Undermountain guard patrol and fend off monsters coming out from the Undermountain depths? Why can't I join the Thieves guild in this game? Why can't I decide if I want to join the Drow and get a Drow mommy?? NO ROLEPLAYING WHATSOEVER!!

SHIIIITTTT!!

meant to say *chosen one in Baldur's Gate*

Where you start doesn't necessarily have to be where you end up.
You can start as a merc or a loner but, at least in the sessions I've been a part of, I've generally had a lot of fun becoming a different character over the course of the game.
In 2077, it sounds like it's the opposite. Choose from being a Solo, a Corp or a Nomad in the beginning and become forced to become a Solo for the rest of the game

We aren’t talking about one branch, if the gangs are different enough to warrant siding with one all the way through, then you’re talking about at least 7 main paths. I think the normie audience would be kind of pissed if you tell them they are missing out on 6 main paths, because you know the normies will only play it once. And if they aren’t 7 different paths then there wasn’t really a difference between formally joining a gang and being a merc that likes to side with one faction over the others

You just invalidated about 90% of Japanese RPGs.

Yeah, cause they're not really RPGs either for the most part

Because developing even a single route for a game is a massive undertaking and every choice you add is a butterfly effect of consequences you need to develop, you need to strike a balance between quality and quantity, PnP RPGs don't have much of a problem with this since it's almost effortless to come up with new routes.

You can become whatever you want. Your background will just open up some specific options for you

And that is exactly what fucking Cyberpunk 2077 is doing faggot. Not only that, but you can actually fucking CHOOSE your start path and beginning, from being a Corpo, Nomad, or Street Kid, something NONE of those games above did. and they already confirmed that decisions play a large role in how the city changes, how the story changes, who you side with and look upon by everyone else, what apartments you can unlock, with multiple different endings/paths.

Attached: 1531264976694.gif (500x345, 408K)

are you telling me having to create a new genre for them just because the original devs trace back their games' inspiration to D&D indicates that its priorities have become different from its source? that's nuts.
Yes, you're right. JRPGs aren't actually RPGs. Hence why we put the J in front to indicate they aren't part of the same family.
We don't differentiate Japanese and American action games, or Korean and American MMOs as different genres.

>if the gangs are different enough to warrant siding with one all the way through, then you’re talking about at least 7 main paths. I think the normie audience would be kind of pissed if you tell them they are missing out on 6 main paths, because you know the normies will only play it once.

In other words, normies hate meaningful choices and having to deal with consequences of those choices. This is literally complaining that you won't get the entirety of the story reading a CYOA once like you would in a regular book.

>you’re a cop but you can randomly decide to side with gang members and kill cops because that isn’t totally retarded
I feel like you’re one of those people that assumes if we got to be a cop in this then we’re some kind of undercover detective that just goes around and does whatever he wants with little to no accountability

Wow that Cyberpunk gameplay looks kinda bad.

Attached: 1536815709215.gif (500x514, 1.34M)

No, they like meaningful choices, but only when they don’t lead to 7 totally different games

Fuck bros I hoped I would be able to be a cyberbaker cyberbaking cyberbreads but I'm forced to be a merc... now THAT would be compelling gameplay.

>randomly decide
I feel like you're one of those people with an extremely limited imagination and has trouble tying your own shoes.

But you can't
I can't become a cop, I can't become a corpo, I can't become a rockerboy.
I dont even want the option to become WHATEVER I want, I'd just like the options that were available in the TTRPG.
The main reason they chose Solo, Netrunner and Techie as the skill trees is because you don't need to change the story based on having those skills
That's...That's what I said 2077 was doing too.
And again, if you CAN join the corps or such in the main-story, I would have thought the devs would have said Yes to the faction question.
>what apartments you can unlock
I think the devs said you only have the one apartment.

>No, they like meaningful choices, but only when they don’t have consequences
You don't need to create an entirely different game for each faction to make joining each faction meaningfully different. Stop being retarded.

Lame comeback

Sorry it isn't a shitty third person Ninja Gayden DMC game.

If I wanted my cum back I'd wipe it off your mother's chin

Attached: D3RplByXoAAed3g.jpg (648x654, 87K)

I don't want freedom in a RPG, I want a movie,

Nah, it's been confirmed a while now that apartments are unlockable that you can gain in the game by siding with particular gangs/organizations. The dev you're referring to only said that purchasable apartments are not a thing in regarding to a question about buying apartments.

Attached: 1560831496324.jpg (688x284, 47K)

Thread in a nutshell.

>I can't become a cop
How do people think this would work? You would impress someone with your skills and just show up for work until the main quest falls into their lap?
Or did they expect to be able to go on job interviews, get hired, spend 6 months in a police academy, and then spend a decade working their way up the ranks?

No, I'm saying that if the player decides to help the gang for story-specific reasons, something like "This gang will help me find a key figure but only if I help them on this job. But oh no, the cops I joined are asking me to take down this gang. I can either stay on good terms with this optional faction I joined but lose out on a potentially useful main-story element, or I can enter a hostile state with said optional faction but gain a story-relevant benefit"

>The only type of interesting gameplay is shooting people as a merc
I dunno, I thought Papers Please was pretty fun

Dude it was mostly cutscenes and scripted events. It even has the shitty bullet time.

Source for the article btw. pcgamesn.com/cyberpunk-2077/garage

it is impossible to have too much freedom.

Attached: Freedom.jpg (1200x674, 151K)

This but unironically, movies are inherently more compelling than games since they are straight to the point without 40 hours of filler.

Oh, cool.
That's nice to know then.
I'll stay open to this game but I'm holding off until I start hearing from people what kind of consequences the player's actions have on the story.

You do, though. If they are all doing the same missions then it’s a cop out. If they are significantly different we have the previously mentioned problem.
If all you get is a couple perks while you do the rest of the game with little changes, then the faction alignment didn’t matter to begin with

Attached: 1560985166827.jpg (1280x720, 49K)

See that one was better.
Still wrong about what would make sense in the story

>either they all have completely seperate games or they're all doing the same missions

You are small minded.

>the cops I joined
See

Nah, I'm right.

nu/v/ everybody

If they aren’t the same missions then you are missing out on content unless you do 7 playthroughs. That’s a tough sell to normies

Well let's assume the main story quest starts before you have any other options. Let's assume it's an uninterrupted string of events where you can't interact with anything else until you get stuck with holo-Keanu in your head.
After that point, you could join the police force as a recruit, pursue the main-story beats while you're off the clock and potentially even bring in some allies from the force as party members when you're at a certain rank and a certain point in the story.
Thus, the police stuff becomes a side-note in your main story but it's still present, such as being able to be on good terms with law-enforcement encountered during the main story or be able to use your authority to bypass red-tape that would stop other types of characters (or prompt violent action).
A police-academy style test would be cool as a pre-requisite for joining the force, maybe you ask to just take the test and written test (which would be pretty funny for worldbuilding, seeing written multiple-choice questions about how to handle various cybercriminals) and then you join and have access to semi-procedural flavor missions that help you climb the ranks along with some hand-crafted quests designed for the Cop storyline

Nope, stupid idea that doesn’t make sense

See

>If they aren’t the same missions then you are missing out on content
So what? Once again, you can't have an RPG with meaningful choices and consequences while being able to expereince all of the game's content in one play through. It's as retarded as complaining about missing the content in a CYOA in one read.

>the freedom in an rpg where you play as a cop to become corrupt and work with gangs is a stupid idea that doesn't make sense

Your opinions are dumb and you should feel dumb.

that actually sounds fun.
maybe not the entire 6 months, but having to pass a police exam of sorts where they jack you into cyberspace. maybe it's some sort of speed-test thing because they burn through new recruits so quickly?
assuming you can build report with individual characters in the game, it'd be nice if there were a party member you could hang out with and befriend. you don't even need to climb up the ranks but build a good relationship with the force and select party members in general, so you can call on them for help or learn how to manipulate your badge to get your way

>you could join the police force as a recruit,
>pursue the main-story beats while you're off the clock
You just skipped everything I said. Do you apply? Show up to the testing in a couple weeks? Have an interview? How about the background? Polygraph? Captains interview? The academy?
Are you not playing when your character works, or is the player supposed to play through all the wageslaving for 50 hours a week?

>Or did they expect to be able to go on job interviews, get hired, spend 6 months in a police academy,
You can have all of that happen in a cutscene. Are you really unable to fathom a game that would give you the option to join the police?

See

You didn’t present a drawn out corruption or someone that worked their way in despite already being criminal, you presented
>hurrr side with the gang members against your brothers in uniform

You didn't present an actual argument.
>>hurrr side with the gang members against your brothers in uniform
Yeah because corrupt cops don't exist. What a dumb fucking strawman.

I mean, it's a fictional setting so I'm guessing they could come up with a reason to shorten it down to 2-3 days of interviewing.
An "aptitude" test (basically a "kill criminals, save hostage" simulation mission) and an interview with the captain where you explain your situation or goals a bit and that can affect your initial standing with them.
That could be pretty cool actually, yeah.
I think those little bits of banality actually add a lot to the world-building and immersion of these types of settings.
>Are you not playing when your character works, or is the player supposed to play through all the wageslaving for 50 hours a week?
Assuming you start off as some sort of beat-cop, I'm guessing the expectation would be that the player has to chase down any criminal reports that are sighted in their area, but can otherwise do what they want.
Also, have to wear the uniform or you're fired, which would make things tricky if you want to interact with the gangs without pissing them off

I can fathom a game where you are a cop, but no, not joining. It’s a very long and tedious process, and even if you use cyber tech to just upload everything into your head, you can’t just gloss over everything without it feeling ridiculous. You would have to have an academy montage, then drop in like a 6 month time gap between every stretch of gameplay to show you as a trainee, then a probie, and normal gameplay still wouldn’t really make sense until like 5+ years later where you have a shot at moving past being a patrolman.

So you have a limited imagination then. Alright.

They exist, but you didn’t present that you are corrupt. You just gave a vague example with no setup

Your suggestions are pointless first of all cause you have your own police image in your head.
Now go and read about police in 2020. Go and find out how in Night City police works, how one department does no business with another, how corpos use their own law enforcers to controll their territory, how state represents barely anything.

But that is the setup. A cop that sides with a gang being corrupt isn't vague, it's a fucking given. Were you dropped on your head as a child?

>Assuming you start off as some sort of beat-cop, I'm guessing the expectation would be that the player has to chase down any criminal reports that are sighted in their area, but can otherwise do what they want.
In Night City? It’s non-stop wageslaving. You need like a Deus Ex or LA Noir setup to get to “do whatever you want” levels.
Not saying it wouldn’t work for gameplay, but you would need multiple time skips to show your progress and distinguishing yourself before ending up in a position where you can do whatever you want.

Why is it a given? These threads are full of
>hurrr I wanna kill whoever I want
retards

>hurr why is it a given that a cop choosing to work with a gang is corrupt

Attached: 1528480087547.png (261x358, 39K)

Well the way I’d see it, the wage slaving mostly comes as a result of being on a patrol. But within that patrol, you can do what you want
The other thing that would work in favor of being able to twist the 2020 version of things is that the game takes place in 2077. So theoretically, the game could set up a situation where you can choose the beat or division you want to cover each day and so that would allow the player to be able to pursue main story goals by patrolling the area they’re concerned with for that story beat

So how much did it cost to add Neo Wick into the game.

Attached: 1560490763588.png (482x651, 137K)

It's funny cause GTA let the player take police work even though you didn't officially join the police.

>semantics about the definition of rpgss
Has any real identifiable human being ever complained about that or is it just some russian trolls on anonymous message boards?

>But within that patrol, you can do what you want
You misunderstand. Real ghettos don’t even involve much proactive patrol anymore, they are so busy they are just going from call to call to call. I can’t even imagine how busy Night City would be
>So theoretically, the game could set up a situation where you can choose the beat or division you want to cover
Boots just get assigned, you need seniority to do that generally.

Arguments over genre definitions has been a staple of online discussion since the early days of BBS.
The more inclusive a genre label is the less useful it is as a way of categorizing media.

>jump right from talking about becoming a cop to siding with gangs
You should have at least mentioned a build up over time of corruption

What, you mean when you stole a cop car and activated the mini game? The one cut from recent installments?
Or them being black-book fixers for spooks?

The original example never mentioned becoming a cop

It's so demented though.
Literally doesn't matter to anyone, it's like pronouns. You just use it because it's convenient category for a discussion.
Then you have some crazy guy yell about using wrong pronoun because their brain chemistry is fucked up.

>genres don't matter to anyone
>comparing them to pronouns

Quite the leap there.

Keanu doesn't seem to be that expensive to book, it's more if he's interested. I think he gives away most of his salaries on movies to charity.

Indeed. While we are on pronouns, isn’t it a little weird that you can pick one in the game and have everyone automatically know what it is, when it actually has no bearing on your potential physical appearance whatsoever?

I think by story he means a main story-line, as opposed to a fleshed-out world to explore that sometimes changes according to important missions.

Voice lines are kind of intensive, but don’t they still get them done in a relatively short period of time, compared to the time investment of a movie?

Mount and Blade

>can choose different character classes/roles
>can customize your character's gender, race, and outfits
>can choose different perk trees
>loot from chests and earn experience and level up

It's a RPG :)

>can play online and raid with other players

It's also an MMO :)

Attached: 220px-Destiny_2_(artwork).jpg (220x308, 19K)

This isn't The Witcher, so make it different. If you can't kill every NPC then it sucks.

>freedom if you give a shit about telling a story is ALWAYS retarded

Attached: fdfdfdfdf.png (817x443, 34K)

I don't really care about particularly killing story-relevant NPCs. I mean, yeah, it's a neat thing if it lets you do that, but it doesn't make or break the game for me. I never really bothered doing that in Morrowind. But I totally understand wanting to kill annoying NPCs and the game not letting you do that. That shit makes my blood boil.

Attached: 1559962451261.jpg (900x582, 383K)

Story is video games are are there only to facilitate the gameplay. These are games, not books.

...

>Is it ok to dial back on story and character building to give the player more freedom to kill important NPCs?
no, it becomes soulless just like any bethesda game, you either make a story or a psychopath game, if you prefer killing named NPCs and not random generated #214342 NPC, then go play other games CDPR isnt for you

people want to make choices and they want their choices to matter.

If you want to experience all the game's content in a single playthrough, then RPGs are not for you.

Morrowind...
Everytime it brought up i want to vomit because the same retarded people praise it for only one ting:
>Dude you can kill literally everybody LMAO

Too bad it has:
>Abhorent gameplay
>Shitty graphics
>Bad story
>Boring quests
>Incredible ugly artstyle

>tripfag thinking his opinion matters near me

bwahahahahahahahahahhahahaha

Attached: 1537436156834.png (720x1000, 1.02M)

People so want to make choices and have those choices matter?
But they do not want to have to play the game 7 times to experience all the content in the game. And if the factions are just slightly different variations of the same thing, then why bother having a faction you are formally aligned with anyway?

>But they do not want to have to play the game multiple times to experience all the content in the game

Then they shouldn't play RPGs. You're still using a black or white fallacy btw.

Playing twice and having to play 7 times aren’t the same thing, stop pretending that wouldn’t be ridiculous

if your story revolves around a specific character and specific scenario then there is little room for freedom in terms of story.

What a retarded take holy shit

Your entire argument is ridiculous.

A game with meaningful choices and consequences necessitates multiple playthroughs in order to expereince the entirety of its content. An RPG where you only need to play play twice to experience all the content would make for an extremely shallow RPG with little choice. Stop pretending that you need to make 7 completely different games for each faction in order to have meaningfully different factions that aren't just slight variations of each other.

>Is it ok to dial back on story and character building to give the player more freedom to kill important NPCs?

Nah, some linearity in stories is necessary to facilitate something coherent without spending hundreds of years attempting to consider every possible death, how it effects the story, and at what time in the story it would effect things. Morrowind gets away with it by outright telling you you're basically in a game over state, with only a few options to continue the main quest. Even something like Fallout New Vegas had some essential NPCs, as limited as they were. The only game I've seen where they made all NPCs killable and it worked in the story/world was the new Prey, but they got away with it by having maybe 10 total talking, interactable NPCs.

Now, it should be like The WItcher series where there are specific moments throughout the story where you can choose to kill important NPCs outright. That should be an active part of choices, of just throwing down. But if they want to keep a consistent story where things actually play out in a coherent manner, those times need to be planned, designed for, and actually impact the game. Otherwise "important" NPCs actually need to take a reduced role in case of the player killing them, which I don't want that either.

If you want a sandbox RPG, you reasonably can't also make a vastly intertwining story with choices that have longterm effects. If you want an RPG with significant impact from choices and decisions throughout a cohesive story, you can't go sandbox. Freedom is key in an RPG, but you can't actually give total freedom ironically. There have to be systems in place, otherwise you just can't reasonably make the product into the experience it's supposed to deliver.

Attached: 1535587302115.jpg (400x400, 28K)

t. David Cage

>Even something like Fallout New Vegas had some essential NPCs, as limited as they were
No it didn't. The only essential NPC was Yes Man, and technically you could kill him even though he would respawn.

I’m not just talking about some branched choices, I’m talking about content. Joining a faction is pointless unless it’s a significant decision. Otherwise it’s no different than cozying up to a faction as a merc and getting some perks and unique quests.
That means all 7 factions would need substantially different stories, or again, people would complain they are all just reasons of the same story. Now you have 7 significantly different stories, and the game is back to not being a sandbox.
>Tl;dr formally joining factions is dumb

He said little room because while it is possible to create the story with freedom, it becomes exponentially more difficult and time consuming to web it all together into something consistent or functional.
You can't design a modern game to have 10 different story-lines and somehow expect to put that together in a reasonable timeline.

Stop pretending that you need to make 7 completely different games for each faction in order to have meaningfully different factions that aren't just slight variations of each other.

Play a roguelike dickhole.

dififcult != unreasonable or infeasible
>You can't design a modern game to have 10 different story-lines
Have you ever played an RPG?

Sure but you can have 10 different ways to progress through a story line.Which I don't think Cyberpunk 2077 will deliver seeing as only the most generic classes are playable.

Not with ten different distinct storylines that don’t end up in the same places or recycled missions.
Further, some were also arguing that the normie audience doesn’t want to feel like they have to replay the game that many times to truly finish the game

I see it like a D&D campaign. You either have your somewhat linear adventure, planned out by the DM that genuinely allows for the characters to shape important events within the world/situation the DM created. Or, you have the complete free-form adventure where the DM creates characters and situations on the spot based entirely around the players' choices/interactions.

In a more focused campaign, it's incredibly difficult (if not impossible) to respond to every interaction a player has within a pre-designed world/situation. If a player just outright says fuck it and goes on a murderous rampage through every NPC you created, your story and ability to provide meaningful choices down the line basically evaporates. You're DM'ing style becomes more reactionary, which often means less intricate responses to what's happening since the player nullified the entire point of what was created.

I see it the same in vidya RPGs. You can easily make your free-form sandbox RPG where everyone is able to be killed, but good luck not only making all the systems to do that, but also trying to implement a story and choices in. It would be a fun game, but certainly nothing blowing people away for its story-telling and choice driven gameplay when you're just spending 70% of your development preparing for some players to outright kill every NPC seen.

So I think it depends on the game. If you're making a more sandbox experience with somewhat shallower interactions, fucking go nuts with player freedom. If you want an intricate interaction/choice based experience with a cohesive story, you need to reel the player back in a bit. Otherwise you face development time and costs that are unthinkable.

How many times do I have to say that if the factions are all just slight variations of each other then there is no fucking point in exclusive factions to begin with, they would just get shit on for each faction being the same

They were arguing that the normie audience doesn’t want to feel like they have to replay the game multiple times to expereince all the content. Which is retarded when talking about a genre that includes C&C and branching paths.

Fair enough. But even in that case, Yes Man serves as a fall back plan in case the player has decimated everyone and everything in their path. So even in a game where even Yes Man is technically killable, there had to be someone available to facilitate continuation in the story, respond to choices, and create an avenue for an ending. There has to be something in place, unless you get an ending for killing literally every NPC I suppose, which could be a giant middle finger from the devs as an image in the credits.

Your critera for exclusive factions that aren't "slight variations of another" is writing an entirely new game just for that faction. It's like saying you need to write 7 different books or else every choice in a CYOA book must lead to the same result.

Branched choices are not mutually exclusive from content. If you are playing a game with branching choices that are meaningful, and it doesn't just happen at the end of the game, then you are naturally going to miss out on some content in that playthrough.

Will either of these outfits be in the game or are we stuck just choosing between a few different jackets?

Attached: 2014.jpg (1280x720, 115K)

Yeah, the normie audience doesn’t want to have to play he game 7 times. 2-3 times, sure. That’s who every product is for, normies.
This isn’t a concern though because there are different paths, but not 7 different exclusive main story branches

Not all joinable in the same playthrough m8

If you had 7 exclusive factions that weeent significantly different, they would get a ton of shit for the factions being reckons of each other

There doesn't need to be.

If the normie audience doesn't want to play the game multiple times in order to expereince 100% of the content, then they shouldn't play RPGs. An RPG where you only need to play twice to experience all the content would make for an extremely shallow game with little meaningful choice.

>significantly different
Again, your criteria for "significant" is "entirely different game just for that faction"

Now you’re just telling normies not to play, that isn’t what any devs are going to do.

Why don't they give you the option to play in either 1st or 3rd person? Why should we be stuck to just 1st person?

Attached: frederic-bennett-adamtrench.jpg (1920x2342, 396K)

If they aren’t different, then they are the same.
Luckily it won’t be an issue because you can’t join one faction, because that would be dumb

No, I'm telling you how aspects like choice and consequence work in games like RPGs and CYOAs, and you are telling me normies refuse to play them if they can't expereince all the content in one playthrough.

Geralt in The Witcher 3 actually had some decent clothing variety. Full plate armor, light leather, templar looking cloth robes, basic casual clothes, even a towel from one part of the game. Most equipment boiled down to the same plate or leather stuff, but there was a decent variety in types, colors, even how roughed up it was (half peeled insignias, stitched tears, gashes/dents in the metal). Whether or not they keep that same variety I have no idea, but they showed they could do it before. I could at least see them putting in stuff representing some of the different types of people in that society, like leather jackets for your merc types, tactical gear for operators, cleaned up suits with maybe a vest/gadgets on for corpos, etc.

You can have different factions in the same game.
The idea that you need to have completely different games just for each faction is dumb.

The game is tailored to normies, so there won’t be branching stories that diverge as much as exclusive faction joining would deserve

Probably for "immersion" and that the game is focused on a lot of shooting. Even your posted image of Deus Ex only had third-person for takedowns/cover because it was also shooter heavy.

Besides, if it is a game with lots of crawling through vents and shit, I'm cool with it being in first person.

If you were locked into a totally distinct faction, but they all pretty much played the same, that would be pointless. So they would have to be different.

>linear and closed story: I.Q truly RPG aspects, freedom of choice, almost sandbox if you want to: I.Q 100+ (patricians, boomers, gentlemen, human beings and modders)

Because every interaction in the game is centered around first person. It would be twice the work to include both views and maintain the quality

In other words, the game is tailored to people who don't want their choices to matter, because exclusive faction joining would somehow necessitate multiple games with completely different stories seperate from one another.

Congratulations, you just got redpilled about japanese """rpgs"""

So Spore?

Nobody is saying they would play the same except for you. The joinable factions can be different, while still existing in the same game.

Who keeps spouting this retarded fucking bullshit about joining factions.
There's literally NO faction reputation whatsoever, let alone joining them. In fact, there's no reputation of any kind at all. Street Cred is just glorified progression exp.
At most you can expect some of your actions to set up a flag for some random encounter.

For this game they partially developed a character (of which you have some ability to customize) and created a story around this character. Joining factions doesn't fit into the story of this game.

You have freedom in story choices and how you play the game. That doesn't mean the game is just one big sandbox

But you can complete Morrowind even if you kill every single NPC in game - you can still get the tools and destroy the heart, getting the final cutscene with Azura telling you that you have succeeded in your mission.
That message only means that you will not get the quests associated with said NPC (duh)

>Normies aren't retarded.
Normies are people who don't know about game mechanics the game literally (not figuratively or virtually, absolutely literally) spells out for them. Then they complain about it or act surprised when someone points it out.
Normies are fucking retarded.

He saying you wouldn't be able to join factions without it ruining the game.

Too much freedom is listlessly having fuck-all to do. The most linear fucking game is better thsn an empty sandbox

Attached: 806744B405E34137B0CEF2646A28C779.jpg (1612x1242, 246K)

ITT
>RPG should have no plot or any main characters, you should just wander around the world like in gta online and imagine your own story and characters, forcing player to some sort of role in their role playing game, is a bad thing.

Of course they could, by that would never happen. A modern dev with an audience this big would never lock stories that different behind 7+ different playthroughs

ITT
>RPGs should have no choices or consequences, you should just go down one linear path and your role in a roleplaying game should be determined by superificial features like what color your hair is or what combat abilities you leveled up

Do you guys think we have any chance of getting DLCs which aren’t connected to the main campaign? Cops or medias could be cool

Yeah honestly I'm getting tired of the open world meme, it feels like every game is open world now.

All you're saying is a modern dev with an audience this big would never make an RPG with more than 2 or 3 branching paths. Even fucking Detroit of all games was able to have different stories locked behind multiple playthroughs.

Yeah then how about don't fucking make it open world, you polish kikes. Ruined TW3 with that garbage.

A media DLC with a character like Spider Jerusalem would be cool

Attached: 1493138266010.jpg (736x1140, 291K)

The actual reason is level density. First person games can be more dense and display more information to the player in a readable and easily interpreted way, 3rd person games lose fidelity because you have to zoom the FOV really far backwards so things like switches on the walls become totally unreadable information to the player.

It's a bit weird that CP77 doesn't use the first person perspective to it's full potential and they settled on a sort of mongrel level of detail between third and 1st person perspective readability.

Attached: 1492830046678.png (831x1340, 1.25M)

Some linearity is fine as it's sort of the nature of the medium that you must always play a pre-defined role and A-B-C plot points will always happen.

The real problem is that chosen one save the world plots are lame and it's impossible to roleplay a chosen one mary sue.

>All you're saying is a modern dev with an audience this big would never make an RPG with more than 2 or 3 branching paths
Yeah, I am. What is your point?
>Even fucking Detroit of all games was able to have different stories locked behind multiple playthroughs
And I've never heard of it, shows how well it does.

youtube.com/watch?v=OXi6A8osp9s
Don't mind me, just circumventing the age gate to see if this one is in 4k while the hooktube version isn't

>Yeah, I am. What is your point?
Your point is pants on head retarded. Normies don't want to play a game more than twice so modern devs can't make any RPGs with different joinable factions unless they have completely seperate games written for them with no overlap in content whatsoever.
>And I've never heard of it, shows how well it does.
The game literally sold 3 million copies while being a console exclusive in a niche genre, and had a fraction of the budget that the Witcher 3 did. If you're not even aware of one of the most prominent examples of a modern game with multiple branching storylines then you're ill equipped to discuss the subject.

>unless they have completely seperate games written for them with no overlap in content whatsoever.
No, I said if they are reskins then it is lazy and people will complain, and if they are significantly different to the point that each faction is basically a different game then normies would be irked at missing out on content because they still aren't going to play the game 7 times.
>The game literally sold 3 million copies while being a console exclusive in a niche genre
Why should I be familiar with your literally who consolecuck title?

you don't need to dial back on story. the player can write his own story if you set up the systems that allow it. but you do have to dial back on "story" if what you mean by it is a bunch of mo-capped cutscenes.

Guys, I just had a crazy idea.
What if this is us if we use the Corpo background

Attached: Corpo Start.png (948x959, 1.4M)

I don't have the imagination to invent narrative on the go when I'm doing the same shit any other character would do.
I don't understand what people see in games like new vegas, yes the game lets you do whatever, but it also doesn't acknowledge it beyond the mechanical.
Let's say you're doing some kind of genocide run and you kill every single named character.
Nobody will react to that beyond factions turning hostile. There is no narrative acknowledgement that you're a threat to the order of things despite you ending human life in Nevada.
Yes the regular story if fine in new vegas, but the aspect the fanboys clamor on about is entirely pointless and boring.

>and if they are significantly different to the point that each faction is basically a different game
Again, your point is pants on head retarded because of this. You're too much of a headass to accept you can have multiple joinable factions that are different from one another without creating an entirely new game for each one.
>Why should I be familiar with a AAA game with multiple branching paths when talking about multiple branching paths being feasible in a AAA game
The game is getting ported to PC so your console war faggotry doesn't even work here. Detroit was literal normie bait which demolishes your retarded argument that they can't tolerate missing out on a game without playing through multiple times.

>I don't have the imagination

That's all you needed to say. The rest of your post was entirely pointless and boring jibberish.

*missing out on content

Go talk to a rock and pretend it gave you a quest to hang your self, then jump off a building and pretend you hung your self because you could not find a rope.

>you can have multiple joinable factions that are different from one another without creating an entirely new game for each one.
You could, but they would be too similar and people would shit on them for all being the same thing
>The game is getting ported to PC
Still never heard of it

We get it, you lack imagination.

>How much freedom is too much freedom?
well as long as it is signposted in some way that certain plot shit will the player be locked out of akin to morrowind. And then it would still be a sort of fun thing since akin like morrowind maybe some backdoor shit can found out to make the main story beatable in some sense even if said important npcs are ignored or killed.

So like Gothic?
The devs went as far as not adding kids in the game because they didn't want unkillable NPC's to ruin the immersion.
The 4-5 key characters that were unkillable were very powerful, surrounded by guards and even if you survived the fight there would be consequences.
Everyone else was fair game.

>let geralt kill any character
>now we need 40 new dialogues with NPCs about him killing the emperor of nilgaard and a new ending
>we'll also need this for any other leader
>now he can kill ciri and I'm not sure how we'll write that, schedule a week for that
>cancel the dlcs, they have too many characters that we will have difficulty writing around Gerald killing
>killing Yenefer after landing in skelige means she can't necromancy that dude, what now?
>we need 100 notes describing main story stuff that characters would tell geralt if he didn't stab them
>we need to delay the game 10 years to give players real choice

>You could, but they would be too similar
For YOU.
You can have joinable factions that aren't all the same thing without creating an entirely new seperate game just for that faction. Get over it.

>Still never heard of it
That's your own problem.

>For YOU
No, 7 different factions that all get slightly different flavors of the same missions and ending is lazy
>That's your own problem
Sounds like it's the game's problem

They aren't slightly different just because they don't have entirely new, sepereate games created just for that faction. Your entire argument is based on a pants on head retarded black or white fallacy.
>Sounds like it's the game's problem
I'm sure the game devs are crying over their millions of copies sold because some dipshit on Yea Forums who isn't familiar with games that have branching storylines hasn't heard of it.

Who killed Hannibal?

you have garbage taste

>They aren't slightly different just because they don't have entirely new, sepereate games created just for that faction
You don't try and meet in the middle at all, you just keep trying to insist that it isn't.
If the game is re-using all the missions, and barely offers any difference, then it is lazy and there might as well not be different faction choices.
>I'm sure the game devs are crying over their millions
You said 4 million. That isn't a lot. Probably why I've never heard of your literally who consolefag game

hang yourself

Hi Todd!

The morrowind solution was perfect
You can kill everyone, but if you kill someone crucial to the main story you get a message that you wont be able to finish it now

But you're the one who is insisting there's 0 middle ground between
>different factions to the point that each choice means making multiple different games for each faction, with 0 overlapping missions without any variances
>different factions that re-using all the missions, and barely offers any differencem just slightly different flavors of the same missions with nothing distinct whatsoever

You're presenting a false choice between the two, refusing to accept anything in between

>3 million copies for a console exclusive in a niche genre isn't a lot
Just stop making an ass out of yourself. It's getting pathetic now.

>samefagging
looks like I hit a nerve.

Just chiming in my opinion. But killable NPCs is a huge + for me, one of my favorite things about Morrowind and Demons Souls/Dark Souls

I agree. But this game was never going to be a sandbox.

>But you're the one who is insisting there's 0 middle ground between
There is a little, but the factions have to be pretty different to ensure that they aren't all slightly different flavor of the same thing
>different factions that re-using all the missions, and barely offers any differencem just slightly different flavors of the same missions with nothing distinct whatsoever
You're going to have to change the order, factions involved, a lot of shit for people to not say you just did a lazy copy+paste job for the factions.
Not that any of this matters. You aren't getting joinable factions.
>3 million copies for a console exclusive in a niche genre isn't a lot
I feel like you have missed my original point. Of course it could be done, but it isn't profitable to do so and a company with a market this big isn't going to half of them off because you need to play the game 7 times to actually experience all the content and not just some small differences between a handful of branched choices and special item opportunities that lock you out of other ones.

hang your self

>he's still replying
Yeah I definitely hit a nerve lol

New Vegas is trash.

>There is a little, but the factions have to be pretty different to ensure that they aren't all slightly different flavor of the same thing
Not different enough that they would require an entirely new and seperate game just for that faction.
>Not that any of this matters. You aren't getting joinable factions.
Where did I say I was? You keep missing the point.
>You're going to have to change the order, factions involved, a lot of shit for people to not say you just did a lazy copy+paste job for the factions.
It's almost as if it's an RPG. No shit you have to alter how the game plays out in order to have a divergent quests with meaningfully different choices
>but it isn't profitable to do so
Yes it is.
>isn't going to half of them off
They don't need to.
>because you need to play the game 7 times to actually experience all the content
You need to play the game multiple times to actually expereince all the content in order for it to have meaningful choices that aren't as shallow as a puddle. What part of choice and consequences do you not understand?
>and not just some small differences between a handful of branched choices and special item opportunities that lock you out of other ones.
Again, you don't try to meet in the middle at all, you continue to insist that there isn't any.

Your opinion is trash.

>this whole thread

Attached: 1560475433714.gif (252x263, 2.99M)

Attached: image.png (1071x433, 48K)

every tried killing yourself? cause I'd recommend it.

>took 15 minutes to use inspect element and screencap your post
kek

nah, was just playing vidya unlike you who clearly does not play vidya, only posts stupid shit on here

All you do is post stupid shit on here lol

okay retard

keep replying for me

keep being a retard for me

How is it not for losers anymore?

very imaginative response. think that one up by yourself retard?

not even the guy youre replying to, but i just wanted to say hi (posting from front page btw)

hi guy who isn't the guy I'm replying to

Angry incel murderhobos can't go around indiscriminately murdering NPCs and have to cope with their impotent rage over muh choice to kill whoever i want, bunch of spergs

I don't understand. You can kill any NPC or there are immortal NPC's? I may have missed some news.

this desu

Attached: 1546155552039.jpg (668x450, 71K)

almost as if different people write these bios, lol

Ideally the main story would naturally collapse if you killed someone really important, but the side content would be good enough to enjoy the playthrough if you do that.
Ideally.
But we're not getting that because that would be too fun and not cinematic enough.

Now that's some nice projecting