|
>>
|
No. 13568
[Edit]
>>13567
They really had. They specifically picked a pnp RPG to adapt, they had an enormous budget to utilize and a lot of faithful fans (fanboys?) who would have accepted anything, even shit wildly straying from the mainstream.
They chose to squander the opportunity.
There's no reason for CP2077 it to be tied with CP2020 game anymore. Lore alone isn't enough to justify the connection. They could have slapped together their own standard futuristic setting and called it a day.
Years ago when it was announced it was supposed to have all that stuff cRPG's were known for back in the day- a blank slate player character, a wide selection of classes, deep and reasonably adapted mechanics.
Now it's trimmed down to 3 combat oriented classes tied to one defined player character. Who seems to be some uninteresting douchebag I have no business playing as, and have little hope of significantly altering the character to my liking.
It's shaping up to be just another "role" playing game, where you play the role as assigned to you by the devs. Where choice is possible only within a narrow scope of staying in-character.
In the predefined fucking character.
Have you ever wondered what lies at the very core of a traditional RPG? The most important thing which trumps everything else?
It's player agency.
Usually bound by rules of the setting of course, but within the confines of that world a player must have the full freedom of action. Actions carry consequences which shape everything about the world the players are in and so on. That's the whole point of role playing games.
It demonstrates to the players that they matter. That their will makes the game.
The perfect role playing session is not just a show of creativity and imagination, it's an expression of free will. It needs to be respected.
Limiting player agency is a cardinal sin, the sign of a bad game master. (Or a beginner but the sins of beginners shall be forgiven... if they learn from their mistakes)
The purpose of a game master is not to tell his story... contrary to the humorous depictions which, I believe, became the popular belief eventually.
A good game master serves his players and allows them to shape their own adventures. Players play, game master adapts on the fly. No easy task.
That's the path cRPG's should be walking though.
I know I know, that's not how things are done today because reasons and invention is uncomfortably hard.
It's not possible to implement this philosophy fully but it is an ideal that absolutely should be pursued.
cRPG's should be steadily becoming more freeform instead of folding back into adventure game-like tight narratives.
I mean those should be made too, but the main effort should be directed towards providing more fluidity, more freedom.
It is the only way to elevate the genre beyond the superficial ornamentation it's being dressed up in these days.
It needs to be brought back to the light because right now it's standing waist deep in a pond of sludge.
It's all going the cinematic route- predefined, designed, built around bombastic set pieces, big names and other "iconic," easily marketable things. That makes for poor role playing.
Hell, CDProjekt even changed the term "RPG" to narrative-driven-action-something in Cyberpunk advertising.
Things need to change, radically.
They refuse to step away from the settled formats and the easy money it brings. The Call of Duty syndrome. Fear of losing acquired wealth.
CDProjekt is a big thing now, they're shitting money and fame yet instead of striving to live up to their reputation of 'saviours' they choose to keep the big old industry machine running as usual, throwing more bog standard AAA's into the sea of facsimiles.
Ever wondered why some old games still have cult following? It's not always nostalgia goggles. Sometimes, but not always.
Some of the old games are more compelling because they actually tried original, risky, ambitious shit you don't see anymore.
There were no industry standards, no mandatory cliches expected to fill. Less restrains on creativity.
There was will to boldly go where no dev has gone before, and too little experience to make anyone afraid of the challenge.
Lessons were learned, and they were learned rightly, but they brought fear. A fear that drove the industry into a defensive play-safe posture.
Controls and UI's generally got better with time and that can't be argued but the mechanics? They stagnate and regress.
It's like courage to innovate was killed by big money and profit margins.
Look at X-Com. Original UFO Defense is still very playable and still better than most turn based squad tactics out there.
You can control up to 26 individual units which is like 2 full squads of actual real life infantry.
That's rare scale these days but back then? They didn't know any better... and they ended up with a better game for it.
Contemporary XCOM2 is an alright game, but it's not timeless. It's fast, simple, scaled down, gimmicky. 6 units at a time one base. Streamlined. Safe. Boring.
As an aside, the new XCOM's have cartoony, stylized graphics. Well, the originals were stylized but it was by necessity, forced by technical limitations.
The game itself was gruesome, as was its lore. It was supposed to be horror. The modern sequels could have gone that way, but sadly didn't.
XCOM2 expansion doubles down on silliness, adding a team of villains straight from Power Rangers as enemies. It's ridiculous, when they lose a battle they even yell shit like "we'll get you next time, XCOM!"
Julian Gollop, the original X-Com guy is developing Phoenix Point which was supposed to be a spiritual successor to his old creation.
It started out looking very nice, a gritty horror with slightly more advanced tactics and some interesting, rarely seen mechanics... but along the way he capitulated to profit-generating streamlining and a more mainstream-pleasing cartoony graphical style.
It looks like an XCOM knockoff now. For shame.
Back to RPG's. Things like fully voiced protagonists and NPC's put severe constrains on what can be accomplished. That practice is contradictory to the very format of a role playing game. It narrows the playing stage. It curbs creativity and interactivity.
So much technology and money went into games over the years, and the developers became thrifty labourers instead of allowing themselves to be more powerful creators.
They're willingly going nowhere, trying to polish the same turd over and over.
Games are currently fixated on the superficial- presentation, selling the experience. Sadly they're not even very good at it.
Advances in graphics used to be significant enough to justify lacking gameplay but that was 15 years ago. Not anymore.
The returns have diminished and the vast majority of games needs to conform to standards enforced by limited console hardware anyway.
Further advancements should be made by evolving mechanics, storytelling, furthering the bounds of player agency.
The mainstream audience isn't as dumb as they were conditioned to behave as. I bet they would gladly sacrifice cinematics and other forgettable flash for more actual freedom and influence on the game they're playing. If only they were given the chance to experience it. Pity no one's willing to take the risk.
No one but the rare indie madmen. There were some attempts but small studios don't have the money and manpower to achieve a true breakthrough.
To my knowledge No Truce With The Furies tried to push the envelope of what's considered possible in interactive storytelling, but they were a bunch of dirt poor Estonian rookies so it went downhill.
Vapourware, and probably dumbed down for financial reasons if it's still active, but at some point in the past they had some playable stuff and the word is it was something very unorthodox and deep by current standards, yet immensely compelling.
They also had a philosophy concerning failure, a conviction I happen share: that failure in an RPG should not be a hard 'game over' screen.
In a traditional RPG it doesn't need to be game over when you die or fail. It doesn't even need to be a punishment.
Failure can lead to interesting, fun consequences. Traditionally it's up to the GM, but a good one will make even failure a compelling experience.
Ideally there should be no losing state, because failing could be made fun in its own way too.
After all RPG's are not a competitive game of skill where clear cut win-lose states are necessary.
I mean munchkins aren't rare but they're not a respected bunch, they're missing the point.
Again, such flexibility is not fully possible within cRPG's but it's something worth pursuing in some form.
In the end RPG's are co-operative by nature.
They're regulated by gamey mechanics but at the core there it the collective effort in creative writing.
Co-operation is required between the players themselves, and between players and the GM.
The point is for everyone involved to construct a good adventure together, even when players are playing against each other.
I find most contemporary cRPG's (especially action-RPG's) to be like films- I might like it, I might not, but in the end what I wanted doesn't matter.
I could never get enough freedom and agency within the stories I played, and instead of expanding it all got more restrained still.
As a video game player I feel like I'm in constantly at odds with the devs, my game masters.
It's a doctrinal conflict.
I don't actively discuss this usually, I think I'm in the tiny minority on this. I've seen no popular demand to bring any of the much needed flexibility to cRPG's.
|