Still listening to bullets :v:
I'm excited for this game and I've seen one short awesome video ..
[QUOTE=EliteGuy;39231234][url]http://www.behance.net/gallery/Cyberpunk-2077/6573211[/url][/QUOTE]
holy wow, that is awesome
this is probably going to have the best viral advertising ever. i just hope CDPR always stay as original and honest as they've always been. the witcher series will always keep me as a lifetime customer and these guys know how to deliver amazing content, but if this game just gets loads of PR and turns out to be a deus ex clone i'm going to be really disappointed
also from the site
[quote][i]Ever since we set out to create it, we knew the promo would work only if the [b]female protagonist[/b] engendered a serious emotional response in the viewers and push the aesthetic boundaries of the typical female form. Video games frequently feature banally designed female characters, composed of the same hackneyed elements. Though undoubtedly beautiful, these characters are often contrived. In this particular case, the ability to work with a real actress thoroughly transformed the film.[/i][/quote]
female protagonist? that's the main inquiry i'm curious about. CDPR have always had one fixed character. maybe that'll change with this not-unveiled RPG title but if you follow what they've always done, you won't have a choice and she'll be the main character. Unless she's the protagonist and you follow through someone else's perspective, much like Dandilion being the "journals" for Geralt in Witcher
unless they're just overemphasizing everything and are just making it look like the PR shot has anything to do with the game in general even though it more than likely has nothing to do with the game at all and was just there for teaser status
Penny Arcade made a [url=http://penny-arcade.com/comic/2013/1/14]comic[/url] and [url=http://penny-arcade.com/2013/01/14]news post[/url] about it, too. The comic is mostly not relevant to the actual game, though.
feb 5 can't come quicker
Personally I prefer it when RPGs have player-defined characters like The Elder Scrolls and Fallout rather than GTA or Deus Ex. I just like making a character my own, though I grew to really lke John Marston in Red Dead Redemption, though that's not really an RPG and his characterisation leans easily towards atoner than fettered, unrepentant criminal. Some narratives simply need a fixed character to do justice.
[sp]Totally not because I use RPGs as escapism from my gender identity problems.[/sp]
if you guys are looking for a good cyberpunk game, i'd reccomend omikron: nomad soul
it's not necessarily in the cyberpunk category, but it's horribly forgotten and should really be remembered. especially for being a 1999 game: it might have 1999 visuals and wonky controls but its gameplay is still top knotch and the story is pretty engaging
[img]http://www.atomicgamer.com/screenshots/game-1456/10586-800.jpg[/img]
[img]http://www.mobygames.com/images/shots/l/253587-omikron-the-nomad-soul-windows-screenshot-shooting-sequence.jpg[/img]
Suggestions for cyberpunk games? No one has mentioned Oni yet? For shame Facepunch, for shame.
I hope we can choose our character gender and have complex customization. Then again I would trust them with one set character because they know what they are doing but still, making your own character is a plus.
I never asked for this.
[IMG]http://behance.vo.llnwd.net/profiles7/339011/projects/6573211/e43636dd4d24b3162f6929b027e9875f.jpg[/IMG]
Also I like the helmet but I would prefer different uniform, the enhanced guy is wearing a simple jumpsuit (I suppose he doesn't need body armor, but I'd like to look a bit cooler).
What if the guy and the girl in the trailer was selectable as the player-controlled character (with also minor cosmetic customisation outside actual character progression) and the plot followed a common link in their backstories so it would make sense for either to be the "actual" main character, or something.
[QUOTE=Janus Vesta;39233700]Suggestions for cyberpunk games? No one has mentioned Oni yet? For shame Facepunch, for shame.[/QUOTE]
oni is cool and all but i hated it. HATED IT
I bet if I played it now though I'd love it to death. the anime-VG style was pretty cool but that was really the only thing going for it
I don't see the appeal in completely player-defined characters. Sure it's nice to design your own hero to project on, but I think it undermines the characterization process of the protagonist. I'd wager that character customization systems are mostly an emulation of the character sheets from tabletop RPG's. There the story and gameplay has to be procedurally built from the actions of those characters, which is drastically different from the pre-designed nature of video games.
[QUOTE=Im Crimson;39233987]I don't see the appeal in completely player-defined characters. Sure it's nice to design your own hero to project on, but I think it undermines the characterization process of the protagonist. I'd wager that character customization systems are mostly an emulation of the character sheets from tabletop RPG's. There the story and gameplay has to be procedurally built from the actions of those characters, which is drastically different from the pre-designed nature of video games.[/QUOTE]
But player defined characters are what create longevity and re-playability in a game like this, besides you can emulate that to a certain degree in video games as well.
[QUOTE=Profanwolf;39234020]But player defined characters are what create longevity and re-playability in a game like this.[/QUOTE]
not wholly.
mass effect can be comparable to what we're discussing: you can change your physical appearance and all of that jazz, but that's really the only "player creativity" bit in it. yeah, sure, there's rpg aspects too but that's because mass effect is essentially a roleplaying game.
the thing is, though, mass effect is also similar to witcher. and in witcher, you get a choice in your speech and what you say and what you do directly lead to an outcome in the game, whether it be immediate or later on down the road.
back to mass effect, though, you give in to your character. you can make good or bad choices: happy attitude or bad attitude, but no matter what you do it's something that your character would do and not something YOU would do. You can pick "be an asshole" but it is always permitted inside of the character boundaries, meaning that "being an asshole" would be an asshole in how your character sees fit and not how you see fit. if that makes any sense
an example would be you yourself might tell someone to eat a dick but you don't get that option in a game, so the closest bet is to just pick the "be a dick" option and argue and have a witty comeback, but it's one that your character thinks of and says.
you direct a character. you can create their appearance, but you eventually learn that the character you direct is still themself and if you play as a different appearance it just doesn't fit
that's how cyberpunk is going to be, i'd wager: it'll be like witcher. you'll have options to say and do things, but if you get the ability to make your own character you'll look back at it and say "naaaahhh, that doesn't look right. the look and appearance just doesn't match the attitude i'm given" because cosmetics only go so far. customization isn't always a good thing, roleplaying game or not. cosmetics are usually just added in the end because every game has them.
i'd prefer to play a predefined character because that character will already have a background and a story and that's something to build on. you don't grow to like shepherd in mass effect: you grow to the characters because those are the ones with the stories and the choices you make lead to outcomes involving them and that's the only reason i get ME any kind of brownie points. but again, you can't customize your party other than cosmetically. they'll always have their own personalities and traits.
but i'm just ranting and there's probably tons of loopholes in this
[QUOTE=Profanwolf;39234020]But player defined characters are what create longevity and re-playability in a game like this, besides you can emulate that to a certain degree in video games as well.[/QUOTE]
Plus they could theoretically add a bit more balance to the underrepresentation of minorities in video game protagonists, rather than your typical white guy with muscles and, more-often-than-not, attitude.
[editline]15th January 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=69105;39234143]not wholly.
mass effect can be comparable to what we're discussing: you can change your physical appearance and all of that jazz, but that's really the only "player creativity" bit in it. yeah, sure, there's rpg aspects too but that's because mass effect is essentially a roleplaying game.
the thing is, though, mass effect is also similar to witcher. and in witcher, you get a choice in your speech and what you say and what you do directly lead to an outcome in the game, whether it be immediate or later on down the road.
back to mass effect, though, you give in to your character. you can make good or bad choices: happy attitude or bad attitude, but no matter what you do it's something that your character would do and not something YOU would do. You can pick "be an asshole" but it is always permitted inside of the character boundaries, meaning that "being an asshole" would be an asshole in how your character sees fit and not how you see fit. if that makes any sense
an example would be you yourself might tell someone to eat a dick but you don't get that option in a game, so the closest bet is to just pick the "be a dick" option and argue and have a witty comeback, but it's one that your character thinks of and says.
you direct a character. you can create their appearance, but you eventually learn that the character you direct is still themself and if you play as a different appearance it just doesn't fit
that's how cyberpunk is going to be, i'd wager: it'll be like witcher. you'll have options to say and do things, but if you get the ability to make your own character you'll look back at it and say "naaaahhh, that doesn't look right. the look and appearance just doesn't match the attitude i'm given" because cosmetics only go so far. customization isn't always a good thing, roleplaying game or not. cosmetics are usually just added in the end because every game has them.
i'd prefer to play a predefined character because that character will already have a background and a story and that's something to build on. you don't grow to like shepherd in mass effect: you grow to the characters because those are the ones with the stories and the choices you make lead to outcomes involving them and that's the only reason i get ME any kind of brownie points. but again, you can't customize your party other than cosmetically. they'll always have their own personalities and traits.
but i'm just ranting and there's probably tons of loopholes in this[/QUOTE]
Mass Effect does have the option to choose your gender, unlike The Witcher.
[QUOTE=Profanwolf;39234020]But player defined characters are what create longevity and re-playability in a game like this, besides you can emulate that to a certain degree in video games as well.[/QUOTE]
I find that it depends on the game a lot. The recent Elder Scrolls suffers in the character department in general because the developers (writers in particular) are forced to work with the fact that the player has designed the protagonist to be practically anybody. With some exceptions, pretty much we really get out of the character customization systems are some different dialogue responses from NPC's. You can theoretically make character design matter more in terms of how the game plays out on a larger scale but designing the game to play out differently depending on how the hero is configured gets expensive fast, and it isn't feasible for most developers.
Note that I'm not talking about diversification in terms of character stats, skillsets or abilities; the stuff that directly quantifies the character impact on the gameplay itself it. Ideally however this is something that should be left mainly to develop as the game progresses.
EDIT:
The replayability of a game is based on something beyond the character customization screen, too. The Witcher 2 is yet again an example of this.
[QUOTE=DiscoInferno;39234151]Mass Effect does have the option to choose your gender, unlike The Witcher.[/QUOTE]
The Witcher wouldn't make any sense if you play as anybody else but Geralt though. The Witcher is called The Witcher because it's about Geralt of Rivia, THE Witcher. If you play as somebody else the game itself would just lose all definition
[QUOTE=69105;39232783]
also from the site
female protagonist? that's the main inquiry i'm curious about. CDPR have always had one fixed character. maybe that'll change with this not-unveiled RPG title but if you follow what they've always done, you won't have a choice and she'll be the main character. Unless she's the protagonist and you follow through someone else's perspective, much like Dandilion being the "journals" for Geralt in Witcher
unless they're just overemphasizing everything and are just making it look like the PR shot has anything to do with the game in general even though it more than likely has nothing to do with the game at all and was just there for teaser status[/QUOTE]
Female protagonist could mean she's just an ally, she doesn't have to be the player character.
[QUOTE=69105;39234204]The Witcher wouldn't make any sense if you play as anybody else but Geralt though. The Witcher is called The Witcher because it's about Geralt of Rivia, THE Witcher. If you play as somebody else the game itself would just lose all definition[/QUOTE]
If the Witcher is a title, could anyone have concieveably become the Witcher? I dunno, never played the game. Never appealed much to me. Eitherway, I prefer at least cosmetically player-defined characters.
[QUOTE=DiscoInferno;39234340]If the Witcher is a title, could anyone have concieveably become the Witcher? I dunno, never played the game. Never appealed much to me. Eitherway, I prefer at least cosmetically player-defined characters.[/QUOTE]
Well, Geralt is just particularly renowned Witcher, one of a handful from different parts of the world ('Witcher' being a blanket name for mutagenically enhanced monster slayers, something of a European-fantasy equivalent of Samurai).
The point however is that the characterization and plot writing in The Witcher is built smoothly and securely around Geralt's identity (his appearance included), which has been carefully designed by the writers and artists to fit the story he is part of to achieve the most consistency and suspension of disbelief.
[QUOTE=Im Crimson;39234479]Well, Geralt is just particularly renowned Witcher, one of a handful from different parts of the world ('Witcher' being a blanket name for mutagenically enhanced monster slayers, something of a European-fantasy equivalent of Samurai).
The point however is that the characterization and plot writing in The Witcher is built smoothly and securely around Geralt's identity (appearance included), which has been carefully designed by the writers and artists to fit the story he is part of to achieve the most consistency and suspension of disbelief.[/QUOTE]
Oh, I see. Still not the only option for RPG characters to be designed.
[QUOTE=DiscoInferno;39234340]If the Witcher is a title, could anyone have concieveably become the Witcher? I dunno, never played the game. Never appealed much to me. Eitherway, I prefer at least cosmetically player-defined characters.[/QUOTE]
the thing you have to know about witcher is that it's made after the books. the books don't really describe geralt, the main protagonist, physically other than he's scarred up, has white hair and the eyes of a cat. however, you have to put in to account that CD Projekt RED followed the books TO THE LETTER on everything about the games. And I mean everything. Even the PR videos
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ysq_xh9TOHM[/media]
For example, in this and in the books, Geralt rides his horse Roach. He uses his witchering (monster slaying or hexing in polish) to slay monsters as a service to people that need his services. in it, he drinks alcoholic-based potions that only his stomach can withstand to give him enhancements. in the video, his medallion shakes when he's near monsters and magic and everything in general follows what would be written in the books. CDPR didn't build the character with the idea the player can play whatever the hell they want in a world that only knows of the player as "you;" they built the game under the idea that you are playing as Geralt. Everybody knows Geralt. He's only the most gifted guy around, slaying monsters and slaying people who commit immoral acts. The Witcher games only go as deep as the story of the books go and that's where the game really shines. It shines because you are playing as the character depicted in the books. Geralt has more backstory and character to him than any computer game to date and that's what makes him stand out as a character
I think if CDPR depicted Geralt the way they did, if they stick to a fixed character for Cyberpunk 77 then that character is going to blow many others out of the water too. especially ones in the sci-fi genre
[QUOTE=DiscoInferno;39234340]If the Witcher is a title, could anyone have concieveably become the Witcher? I dunno, never played the game. Never appealed much to me. Eitherway, I prefer at least cosmetically player-defined characters.[/QUOTE]
Well for one, The Witcher games are based on a series of books which are entirely about Geralt de Rivia, one specific Witcher. And yes, Witcher is a title referring to people that have been genetically modified to be invulnerable to disease, particularly smart, strong, etc, and tasked with fighting monsters.
As for a predetermined/player-determined protagonist... I think I'd generally lean towards a predetermined protagonist simply because it ALWAYS allows for a more engaging and focused story. I don't give half a shit about the story in, say, Elder Scrolls because it's stupidly impersonal. Considering CD Projekt's skill with story telling, I think it'd be unfortunate for them to shoot themselves in the foot with a faceless protagonist.
You know, Syndicate is a great modern Cyberpunk type game. Good shooting, visuals, and a basic but entertaining story. (The co-op missions are a nice touch too.) It'll be a good tide over until more info is released for this.
I didn't know The Witcher was based on a series of books.
[QUOTE=postmanX3;39234554]As for a predetermined/player-determined protagonist... I think I'd generally lean towards a predetermined protagonist simply because it ALWAYS allows for a more engaging and focused story. I don't give half a shit about the story in, say, Elder Scrolls because it's stupidly impersonal. Considering CD Projekt's skill with story telling, I think it'd be unfortunate for them to shoot themselves in the foot with a faceless protagonist.[/QUOTE]
yeah. that's exactly it.
Elder Scrolls' selling point is that there's a huge world with a bajillion quests and tons of random encounters and etc and you can play however you want with whatever appearance you want because that's what the game is made to be
The Witcher series are focused in smaller areas with no real freeroam, but your mind gets absolutely BLOWN when you make decisions that impact the game in a way that you completely miss out on opportunities [i]that you didn't even know that existed in the first place[/i]. In TW2 you can pick to either fight for a corrupt monarch or fight for the city he is trying to destroy, and within that you have to end a curse that is bringing back a spectre army that will haunt the area forever. Each area has their own storylines; their own quests, etc. and that is by far way more complex than any other roleplaying game has ever brought to the table.
what happens in mass effect? someone just brings something up later if you do something a way they didn't like. or a character dies because of a decision you make. those are small and petty compared to the choices you make in TW2. everybody praises baldurs gate and dragon age and whatever other bioware games that have came out because of the dynamic story changes, but nothing really beats the complexity of any of the witcher games.
the thing that really blows my mind about the witcher 2 is that the game is so complex and so engaging and perfect and it's not until you finish it that you realize that the entire game was only about you just clearing your name for the assassination of a king. THAT WAS IT. THAT'S ALL YOU DID THE ENTIRE GAME. THAT WAS YOUR WHOLE GOAL: TO CLEAR YOUR NAME. The entire game takes place because of an event that happened right at the beginning. What were you doing originally? Trying to find Yennefer to remember what happened to you because you lost your memory. Throughout the entire story in The Witcher 2, the only thing you even did to follow the main story (regain your memory) was look for some rare flowers. That was it. TW2 has nothing to do with the story that even took place in TW1, meaning TW3 can finally put you back on track to the main story. That alone just shows you how broad and complex the story of The Witcher is and CDPR will always be my favorite developer of all time because they just know how to make a game.
[QUOTE=69105;39234635]yeah. that's exactly it.
Elder Scrolls' selling point is that there's a huge world with a bajillion quests and tons of random encounters and etc and you can play however you want with whatever appearance you want because that's what the game is made to be
The Witcher series are focused in smaller areas with no real freeroam, but your mind gets absolutely BLOWN when you make decisions that impact the game in a way that you completely miss out on opportunities [i]that you didn't even know that existed in the first place[/i]. In TW2 you can pick to either fight for a corrupt monarch or fight for the city he is trying to destroy, and within that you have to end a curse that is bringing back a spectre army that will haunt the area forever. Each area has their own storylines; their own quests, etc. and that is by far way more complex than any other roleplaying game has ever brought to the table.
what happens in mass effect? someone just brings something up later if you do something a way they didn't like. or a character dies because of a decision you make. those are small and petty compared to the choices you make in TW2[/QUOTE]
That example doesn't really hinge on the player character being anything specific other than someone who fights.
[QUOTE=DiscoInferno;39234667]That example doesn't really hinge on the player character being anything specific other than someone who fights.[/QUOTE]
You fight for the king's army, meaning you get access to the barracks. You get a thousand different quests from the soldiers in the barracks and you can roam around on the king's side of the battlefield and still have to end the curse. After you lift the curse, the king attacks the city whether you like it or not
OR you can fight for the city of minorities and do their sidequests and lift a curse. Sidquests involve meeting a dragon slayer, meeting a human prince who is trying to sell diplomatically get rid of the monarch, etc.
If you, say, pick to fight for the king and you play for twelve hours and lift the curse and yadadada, he attacks the city and you go to the city for one reason or another while it's being attacked, you think it's just a backdrop that you'll never visit again (and you won't). And then it hits you: you had a choice to go to the city to defend it.
It's hard to explain, but trust me: it's not just a simple choice. It doesn't just "create an outcome." It creates its own unique universe that you didn't even know was there
i could go on and argue with you about it all day and try to explain the game but the fact of the matter is that witcher has some lame gameplay that's really hard to get used to and if you can't enjoy the gameplay then you can't enjoy the game enough to enjoy the story, but trust me, the story and the complexity of the storytelling is where the game shines. that's is paint focal point and that's the main reason the game is such a bread winner for the fans that like it.
[QUOTE=DiscoInferno;39234510]Oh, I see. Still not the only option for RPG characters to be designed.[/QUOTE]
It appears to be the only reasonable path to go in order to not end up compromising characterization and story a bit. Not all games need to be like that however, The Witcher is nowhere near sandbox-oriented as Elder Scross by comparison is, and ends up relying more on its narrative to create a good experience. I hope that Cyberpunk lands somewhere in between allowing players some degree of customization, but I also hope that they don't go with "blank slate" characters because it inevitably cripples the story into something non-engaging and impersonal.
I guess the bottom-line of my opinion is: I'll happily give away my freedom to choose the hero's beard style and skin color in return for a protagonist with a more solid identity and tighter connection to the game world and the story he/she is part of.
[QUOTE=Live2becool;39234611]You know, Syndicate is a great modern Cyberpunk type game. Good shooting, visuals, and a basic but entertaining story. (The co-op missions are a nice touch too.) It'll be a good tide over until more info is released for this.[/QUOTE]
Already said it earlier in this thread, but Syndicate has literally one of the worst single-player campaigns I've played in an FPS. It's dreadful in all regards, including pacing and story. I played through the whole thing (including the truly awful final bosses) hoping it'd have some saving grace, but nope. Baaadddd.
And then the co-op. It's difficult to believe it was even developed by the same people, because the co-op is fucking awesome. The level and enemy design is great, the "breaching" mechanics are brilliant, and the metagame leveling/research system is also really cool. My only complaint with the mode is that, once you have all the weapons and upgrades, it becomes mindlessly easy, even on the hardest difficulty setting.
[QUOTE=postmanX3;39234866]Already said it earlier in this thread, but Syndicate has literally one of the worst single-player campaigns I've played in an FPS. It's dreadful in all regards, including pacing and story. I played through the whole thing (including the truly awful final bosses) hoping it'd have some saving grace, but nope. Baaadddd.
And then the co-op. It's difficult to believe it was even developed by the same people, because the co-op is fucking awesome. The level and enemy design is great, the "breaching" mechanics are brilliant, and the metagame leveling/research system is also really cool. My only complaint with the mode is that, once you have all the weapons and upgrades, it becomes mindlessly easy, even on the hardest difficulty setting.[/QUOTE]
The thing about co-op is that no one barely plays anymore. The only ones left are people from mexico with 20 kb/'s connection speeds. It's impossible to play in... so its been taking me a lot longer upgrade my weapons and such. Once in a great while I'll get lucky though.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
