Is CD Projekt Most overrated Developers of today?
- Thread starter B-Cell_v1legacy
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Mind telling me exactly how you define RPGs and how they have terrible combat?
Like, as someone who loves most kinds of RPGs, I see three schools of thought for RPGs.
JRPGs:
These tend to be more focused on a single narrative, and you follow a cast of characters along for the ride. These tend to be turn based, or have simpler level up mechanics, since the gameplay tends to just be there to progress the story.
These are things like Final Fantasy, Etrian Odyssey, Octopath Traveler, and Kingdom Hearts (Albeit that game is more of an action RPG hybrid type game). Hell, technically the portable Mario Tennis games are RPGs.
Western RPGs:
These are designed to let you tell your own character's story through play, and thus tend to have more blank slate protagonists for you to define yourself, and as a result have more flexible levelling systems so you can make exactly the kind of character you want to explore.
These are your Skyrims and Deus Ex games and Dark Souls and so on.
Games with RPG elements but are not pure RPGs:
These are games that are not RPGs, but implement mechanics of them into their games. Like how Dishonored lets you carefully define your character's abilities as you progress while still being more of a stealth type game and definitely NOT an RPG.
-
Ultimately what makes a game an "RPG" is some combination of two things
1) A mechanic for power growth, whether its simply gaining levels or choosing aspects of your character to improve.
2) Role playing potential. Whether it's the more Japanese approach of putting you into the role of a character on a linear story path, or the more Dungeons and Dragons inspired Western approach of letting you express yourself as a specific kind of character in a world.
Aside from some way to increase your character's power over the course of gameplay, there's really no other mandatory gameplay mechanic that an RPG needs to have.
So when you say
I'm left confused as to why you think role playing games by definition have terrible combat or gameplay mechanics.
RPGs can be turn based combat puzzles, or have an action based combat system, or even be expressed in an FPS like the original Deux Ex.
Your first paragraph basically regurgitated everything I pointed out above in bold, but with far more cynicism. I never said any of it was flawless more than that it actually existed, which is still more than can be said of most other games in the genre where every input feels simply weightless and inconsequential. Again, none of the entries were ever designed as all out "Action" games in the first place. As for the jumping, I'll agree it was awkwardly done from a mechanics point of view, but with Sekiro the initial signs point to something more deliberate and appropriately intuitive.Seth Carter said:
Case in point is, I'm optimistic FROM has learned from what didn't work so well in the past and either reiterated or redesigned to suit the new direction they're taking, which looks to be significantly more "Action" than "RPG".
He's got an awful lot of time on his hands and nothing else to do if he's still bothering to troll the same 15 people for the last two years.Red Sentinel said:
In reality, he has shallow opinions with naught to back them up except the occasional youtube video or the same tired rhetoric.
I don't hate him though. He once made me laugh so hard I nearly passed out. I wouldn't take pride in it though if I were him.
In B-Cell's defense, RPGs usually do have pretty shitty gameplay and combat while also being unconcerned with wasting the player's time. I'm extremely particular with the RPGs I choose to play because of that. RPGs are also pretty dependent on good writing while the writing quality in the medium is pretty shit all around. Thus, RPGs have more "misses" than any other genre.aegix drakan said:
JRPGs usually either do horribly basic turn-based combat or try to do "fast-paced" turn-based combat. For the former, you have that standard menu-based combat that's so braindead simple you can have the game play itself with a few if-then-else statements (much like FFXII's gambits). Put gambits into the vast majority of "classic" JRPGs and the games would all play themselves so why am I "playing" it then? For the latter, when JRPGs try to do make turn-based fast-paced and exciting, they fail horribly at being exciting and also being a good turn-based combat. The whole point of turn-based combat is to be slow and strategic because it's supposed to be complex enough to where you have to think every move out. That's not the entirety of JRPGs but it's a large amount of them.
WRPGs, on the other hand, try to do action combat rather poorly. Why am I wasting 10s of hours engaged in Skyrim or Witcher crappy combat when I can be playing an action game with much better combat? You spend more time fighting in most RPGs than you do in a say a Bayonetta/DMC that has combat that is so much better. There's really not much reason why RPGs need so much combat in them, they're RPGs not combat games. You're supposed to be role-playing, not killing hordes of enemies like Kratos. The reason why RPGs fall back on combat for so much of their content is because combat is just easier for a video game than actual role-playing. Of course, some WRPGs do have engaging/good combat but not many.
WRPGs, on the other hand, try to do action combat rather poorly. Why am I wasting 10s of hours engaged in Skyrim or Witcher crappy combat when I can be playing an action game with much better combat? You spend more time fighting in most RPGs than you do in a say a Bayonetta/DMC that has combat that is so much better. There's really not much reason why RPGs need so much combat in them, they're RPGs not combat games. You're supposed to be role-playing, not killing hordes of enemies like Kratos. The reason why RPGs fall back on combat for so much of their content is because combat is just easier for a video game than actual role-playing. Of course, some WRPGs do have engaging/good combat but not many.
Back to RPGs and what they are. I'm sure B-Cell is just referring to games classified as RPGs to be RPGs. I feel differently as most video game RPGs aren't really RPGs because people have gotten lost in "RPG mechanics" and use said mechanics as a basis of what an RPG is when in fact RPGs literally have no single mechanic that they must utilize. You said RPGs need to increase you character's power over the game, but why? Why can't you role-play as a master ninja that's already reached his ninja peak or perhaps starts declining from his peak? There's one-shot PnP RPGs where you'll role-play a character for a single session who obviously ain't going to get any better. Why must we always have to role-play as characters that fight hordes of enemies? The vast majority of characters aren't fighters, can they not be role-played as because they don't fight? RPGs are about making choices that define your character along with making choices that affect the world around you.
RPG works either as a narrative structure or a mechanic in which you define and play your characters role.
Dishonored *is* an RPG, in both senses. Despite the pre-set characters, you ultimately craft out and define your own Corvo/Emily in both terms of their mechanics and their interactions with the world. Its not a bloated decision tree and 28 lines of text dump on every NPC, but the core is there.
Doom guy is always going to be Doomguy and interact with everything in the same way (shooting it in the face, no matter that he has half a dozen upgrade systems) in a fixed narrative that you have no input on.
Fallout 4 was barely an RPG given that your character was preset in all but name (and appearance), and lacking heavily in content that allowed for mechanical diversity as far as that went.
Zelda has never been an RPG. Link has always been Link without input from the player, and he never wanders off of being sword/bow kid with occasional gadgetry to engage with the world in any different fashion.
JRPG's have a weird history. Final Fantasy 1 for its part, at least kept some of the mechanical flavor of RPGs it was emulating from the time. Past that they start spinning off into quasi-interactive movies and/or convoluted tactical games (and in the past decade or so, merged into reuglar action games).
RPGs tending to have so-so gameplay usually comes as a side-effect of having multiple approaches, particularly in the age of "We must let the player do everything in one run". Yu start designing stuff around 3 or 4 sets of gameplay (potentially including the whole thing being skippable entirely, so you don't want to expend resources on it) and it gets spread pretty thin.
Dishonored *is* an RPG, in both senses. Despite the pre-set characters, you ultimately craft out and define your own Corvo/Emily in both terms of their mechanics and their interactions with the world. Its not a bloated decision tree and 28 lines of text dump on every NPC, but the core is there.
Doom guy is always going to be Doomguy and interact with everything in the same way (shooting it in the face, no matter that he has half a dozen upgrade systems) in a fixed narrative that you have no input on.
Fallout 4 was barely an RPG given that your character was preset in all but name (and appearance), and lacking heavily in content that allowed for mechanical diversity as far as that went.
Zelda has never been an RPG. Link has always been Link without input from the player, and he never wanders off of being sword/bow kid with occasional gadgetry to engage with the world in any different fashion.
JRPG's have a weird history. Final Fantasy 1 for its part, at least kept some of the mechanical flavor of RPGs it was emulating from the time. Past that they start spinning off into quasi-interactive movies and/or convoluted tactical games (and in the past decade or so, merged into reuglar action games).
RPGs tending to have so-so gameplay usually comes as a side-effect of having multiple approaches, particularly in the age of "We must let the player do everything in one run". Yu start designing stuff around 3 or 4 sets of gameplay (potentially including the whole thing being skippable entirely, so you don't want to expend resources on it) and it gets spread pretty thin.
It's a damn accomplished for a game to score below an 80. For example, I played the beta of Ghost Recon Wildlands and my thought was "this game is such a disaster it'll score under an 80". It's a bad shooter and bad open world game, yet still scored above a 50.Yoshi178 said:
I'm going to answer the question I choose to answer, rather than the question that I believe is being asked. I think the word "overrated" is thrown around a lot and often not used for it's actual meaning. I'm going to translate "overrated" to mean to give more credit than is due, to have unrealistic expectations beyond historical evidence to demonstrate or to claim that a thing is better than it really is.
Based on that interpretation of overrated, then no, CDPR are not overrated. True, they only have three games under their belt, all in a single franchise but they have ably demonstrated improvement, learning, passion and scope in their later titles. They developed their own engine, included mod tools, include no DRM or shady business practices. They made quality games with a level of polish beyond what (most) so called AAA publishers bother with and received near universal critical and fan acclaim for making TW3, by all accounts a game that shouldn't, but strangely does, exist.
Based on historical evidence, what (little) news we have, the track record, the commitment to remaining shitty practice free, the commitment to make an RPG first, shooter second, DRM free...I believe it. The fact they waited 6 years before the reveal trailer, while frustrating, fills me with hope, not anger. It means that unlike Ubi/Activision who churn out regurgitated horseshit annually, CDPR have taken the time to create some special and to do it justice. I would rather a company takes the time to do something right than to release Andromeda, any AssCreed of recent years or half-finished crap like BF2.
So no, CDPR are not overrated. They have earned a reputation for creating incredible games, for supporting them, for having a sense of humour, for remaining DRM and MTX free and for supporting their fans with free content, mod tools, etc. They are rated precisely as they should be: a quality developer and publisher with a passion and talent for creating top quality games. I have only past experience and hopes to base it on, but I'm supremely confident that CP2077 will be a revolutionary, top quality title that will have people talking for months.
Based on that interpretation of overrated, then no, CDPR are not overrated. True, they only have three games under their belt, all in a single franchise but they have ably demonstrated improvement, learning, passion and scope in their later titles. They developed their own engine, included mod tools, include no DRM or shady business practices. They made quality games with a level of polish beyond what (most) so called AAA publishers bother with and received near universal critical and fan acclaim for making TW3, by all accounts a game that shouldn't, but strangely does, exist.
Based on historical evidence, what (little) news we have, the track record, the commitment to remaining shitty practice free, the commitment to make an RPG first, shooter second, DRM free...I believe it. The fact they waited 6 years before the reveal trailer, while frustrating, fills me with hope, not anger. It means that unlike Ubi/Activision who churn out regurgitated horseshit annually, CDPR have taken the time to create some special and to do it justice. I would rather a company takes the time to do something right than to release Andromeda, any AssCreed of recent years or half-finished crap like BF2.
So no, CDPR are not overrated. They have earned a reputation for creating incredible games, for supporting them, for having a sense of humour, for remaining DRM and MTX free and for supporting their fans with free content, mod tools, etc. They are rated precisely as they should be: a quality developer and publisher with a passion and talent for creating top quality games. I have only past experience and hopes to base it on, but I'm supremely confident that CP2077 will be a revolutionary, top quality title that will have people talking for months.
Phoenixmgs said:
I?ve never played any of the other GR?s but I thought it was pretty cool. I like customizing your character, weapons, and the map was insanely detailed. Progression felt natural fairly organic in that you found objectives by interacting with the environment. Being able to use practically any vehicles made traversal more interesting too. I felt like a badass renegade and for an icon-heavy Ubisoft game its loop was still pretty entertaining by the end of the story.
Did someone else have huge bug problems with Witcher 3? Personally, I found Witcher 3 more bug ridden than Fallout 4 and Skyrim combined. I played F4 on launch and Witcher 3 months after launch and is was still worse.Abomination said:
Why does everyone NOT remember than CDPR gave out free DLC becuase bug were such an issue? It was a massive issue with so many complaints. I suppose getting some freebies blanks people's minds to negative stuff. I bought the game after everyone for those freebies to say sorry and it was still bug ridden.
Level of polish? yeah, that's a no from me.
Actually I was alluding to the fact it was made in Poland and trying to be cheekytrunkage said:
GR doesn't need an open world. The core of the game is getting in and out of an area without being noticed so very well-designed mini-sandboxes is the most open a GR game needs to be. How is actually having to pilot a chopper for minutes at a time to bring back an HVT making that core any better? Same with driving other vehicles around. The shooting mechanics themselves were as bog standard and basic as you get. The cover system was horribly implemented and sorta put in last second when the fans/community bitched about the initial footage not having a cover system. Firstly, it has that soft cover that I hate. Then, shooting from cover was pretty shitty to where about half the time my character would aim at the piece of cover he's on and shoot it instead of shooting over/around the cover. It was so disappointing considering the last game had an innovative cover system, which is saying something as cover and innovative are kinda an oxymoron with regards to TPSs. The overall gameplay really wasn't much more different/unique vs Ubisoft: The Game, Watch Dogs or FarCry both can be played really similarly. I recall reading that the enemy AI was pretty poor in being able to detect you for no reason. I didn't find the progression organic, it took me like 5 minutes to realize I had to "unlock" the real sync-shot as I was wondering why I couldn't sync-shot like you could at the very start of the last game.hanselthecaretaker said:
Phoenixmgs said:
Well I don?t have a frame of reference in the series, so there?s that. I liked the openness of it because it felt like I was actually in Bolivia hunting down druglords, and not just loading up map x to complete task y. Your character moved kinda tank-ish but it never felt detrimental to the core gameplay, which in this one was literally hunting down druglords and using the environment around you as-needed to do so in. I never really missed a jump button either since it still let you scale ledges fairly easily.
As for the cover system, it really wasn?t much different than what TLoU had, which worked better and felt more natural than the sticky cover from Uncharted. I was also able to stealth quite a few areas and the only time getting discovered makes things difficult is if you had Unidad on you. Even then it was possible to escape with the right vehicle and in the cover of jungle or darkness. The point shot thing kinda broke the game though especially later on with max shots and cool down. From my playthrough headshots were also as they should be for the most part given the weapon used. Some progression was still gamey as far as unlocking upgraded skills, but what I meant was you could literally load up the game and just traverse the map and tackle the game however you want, procuring items as you found them through intel and interrogations.
It just came off as super generic Ubisoft-y to me. I didn't like the tank-ish movement when the last game, GRFS, had the smoothest movement of any TPS. I guess they wanted to bring GR back to the slower-paced previous games before GRFS, but moving your character felt like an old Splinter Cell game if I'm remembering that correctly (from PS2). I'm fine if you don't wanna do the slicker/faster movement like GRFS, but can we at least get some movement akin to say MGS4 which controlled far less tanky while not playing fast (not even a sprint in that game) along with nuanced tactical control options like leaning and under-handing grenades. I don't even think you can roll when prone in Wildlands.hanselthecaretaker said: