Information CD Projekt's New Title Is A Cyberpunk 2020 RPG

Another day, another war on the 'Dex. TW 2 vs Risen 2 - which is more shitty and why? DISCUSS!!!11

The spirit of Andhaira lives with us still.

Idiotic point is idiotic. For one thing it's not like what you tried to show with your shitty meme maker thing here. Obviously you have no idea what C&C actually means(don't worry, you are not alone. Many here are the same). It's not about ending up at the same point, as that's true in Fallout as well(hurr, you fight da master or the enclave no matter what you do! C&C suxxors!). What it means is that you get to define particular aspects of the story in certain ways to create a different narrative during the journey. Just because Witcher doesn't fit into your belief that C&C must mean being able to do 100,000 different things with no bearing on the other(durr, I can't make Geralt just be a simple farmer and live off growing vegetables! C&C suxxors!) doesn't meant that there isn't any c&c or that it isn't better than most other games even in the limited form it took there. In TW2 they took it further but again we had smartarses like yourself whining that the end is the same with maybe a few slides, conveniently forgetting that there are entirely different sections depending on what you do from a C&C standpoint. Just because you yourself can decide to piss on the carpet or fuck the dog next door instead of going to work, doesn't mean that the lack of every possible action in a game sold on the premise of 'c&c' negates that premise. I wonder how long and how much would such a game take and cost to make? 10 billion dollars and 20 years?

Regarding to "c&c" I think the problem with the Witcher games is, that you can't choose between different gameplay aspects (stealth, lockpicking, talking, cheating etc).You can only choose between different cutscenes which alter the outcome of the story a bit.

That's at least my short impression of the games. If I'm wrong here please be free to lecture me.

Let's make some compromise and meet half way: TW series are RPG lite action adventure games.

Yeah, I know what you mean. For a hardcore old-school RPG there are practically no skills relegated to other stuff than killing shit. You have no influence on C&C outside of dialogues. Furthermore, even diplomatic skills are useless in those as far as C&C is concerned.

It generally plays like a Bioware game done somewhat right, with the bossfight done somewhat wrong.

I still like it, though.

It's a storyfaggy game with decent writing and great atmosphere. Not the best there is, but still, it's a good effort.

So, what does "C&C" mean? Is it just "dialogue choices that lead to branching plots and quests" or is it something more?

One consequence of the RPGCodex's origins in the Fallout/Troika fandom is that the former concept of "C&C" has been emphasized at the expense of a more generalized definition.

You see games that let you develop diverse characters and solve problems in different ways using actual game mechanics get accused of having "no C&C" because they don't have branching and intersecting stories.

That's not as common as it used to be though, due to rising combatfag/mondblutian influence.

I got the recommendation for the Witcher books when a translation still wasn't available. There were points when
I thought I'll put them away and don't read them until the end. After a break, maybe with the right mindset,
I saw them through to the end. I never could get into them again. Whatever, point is, there were good
memories somewhere. At least they pretended to be, you'll never know.

I gave the Witcher a try. I really wanted to like it, but I couldn't. I watched a trailer for the next iteration,
read some previews, some reviews, but couldn't be bothered to try it. I was just indifferent to it.
I don't know if it was growing up with Bard's Tale, Pool of Radiance and the like. There are just
some games that maybe be better than a lot of others out there, but they're still not good.
Then again I was indoctrinated with too high expectations earlier on, and wanted the
world to hold the promises, it implicated. I mean, I was around 16 when Fallout was
released. And I really thought this was the future, there will be such games again.

As for Cyberpunk from CD Projekt Red, I don't expect anything. I'll be happily surprised if it
turns out a game I might be able to enjoy. There just aren't that many happy surprises around anymore.

The way I define it, it's any way the player can directly affect the story or the gameworld in a significant way. So for example, dialogue choices in Alpha Protocol are C&C because you make choices within dialogue and that has short term and long term effects on the story.

The way you solve quests in the (good) Fallout games is C&C because often solving a quest diplomatically vs shooting everyone up can change the story and ending slides and it can also affect gameworld by opening up new quest paths or closing off other quests.

Using FNV as an example; if you kill Caesar that will close off the Legion questline and some characters can respond or comment on it, but that second bit is just flavour dialogue so I wouldn't call it significant. However, it can also affect how you solve the "return to Sender" quest as, if Caesar is dead, you can use that to solve the quest differently and that in turn can affect the ending slides.

But often I've seen some people here use C&C as "I built a stealthy person so now I can't shoot people in open combat" but that's not choices and consequences that's just building a character. Similarly if Fallout let you solve quests in different ways based on your build but didn't have a resulting consequence like story or gameworld effects then I wouldn't call it C&C. You wouldn't call taking a stealthy route in Deus Ex C&C so I don't see why you should call it that here either. Having different ways to solve quests based on build and game mechanics is more a reflection on quest design and the options you have.

C&C is specifically about how it has a resulting effect on story or overall gameworld such as opening up or closing off questlines or changing the overall area, like killing off NPCs etc. It's not just limited to dialogue options.

Going by that definition Witcher 2 has one good choice where you can choose what Hub you want for Act 2, however the overall C&C is pretty crappy since you can't change the story that much beyond flavour dialogue and there's not much in the way of branching or intersecting questlines.

*Adds question in the Codex of Important Unanswered Questions (C.I.U.Q.), below 'Does a God exist?' 'What is an RPG?'*

No, I think you are right, and at least part of the criticism of 'no c&c' stems from people identifying character builds and development and different approaches to solving a problem as being 'c&c'(which of course it is) and of course TW doesn't allow for such depth as in some games(though it does do it for more situations than it is given credit for, even if it's more in dialogue choices). The problem is that people that think this tend to dismiss the choice based nature of TW as not being 'true' c&c when it actually is. Even such a thing as a choice making you fight a blue clad gang instead of a red clad gang IS c&c in the narrative form, as through your choices you 'direct' the nature of your experience.

tl;dr

TW c&c is primarily the storyfag version while most critics tend to focus on c&c meaning character development and gameplay mechanics.

Have they already published screenshots with whatever (consolized) interface and shitty OTS combat it will use?

The irony is, TW1 had a rather solid interface and became enjoyable with the fpp camera mod. But they cleverly put paid to that with their new engine (Thou shallst not enjoy games on the PC). Good, gameplay had always been a bit weird from the first part, but the popamolized second killed whatever interest I had in the series.

Oh, heavan, WHAT THE FUCK IS THAT?!

According to that definition Devil Survivor shits all over Fallout's C&C while Aoi Shiro fucks Planescape up its undead butt with a wooden practice sword and the Way of the Samurai games laughs merrily at how pathetic those Witcher gaijin shitgames are.

You may want to think of a better one before this place loses all credibility.

call of honor

This thread got pretty retarded pretty fast.

I hope you get to buy hair implants. That's actually one thing I remember very distinctly from having read the rulebook a long time ago.

Except it's one of your default augs you start with.

Personally, I'd love to see Earthdawn. Or maybe a lootwhore game based on Kryształy Czasu

Then there's Neuroshima for the mandatory "traditional" post-apoc setting.

You of course right in extolling the game design of all of those titles, but you are forgetiing the the thematic scope of each of those games is not quite up to the area of interest of your average Codexer. In other words people are not familiar with them partially because it doesn't suit their tastes. And, as we all know, however well the game was made when it just won't tick with the person it won't do the trick.

Some people have bought into the hype.

My argument is not one of relative quality, but one focused entirely on C&C.

1. He gave a definition of what C&C is.
2. According to that definition, every game this place considers a paragon of C&C is kind of awful at it.
3. Therefore, Oops.

If he wasn't mentioning some of those very same games as examples of good C&C while giving the definition I would simply post...



... and call it a day.

Given that contradiction, though, I feel it is my duty as a model citizen to offer him a helping paw.

Fallout and Planescape are not paragons of C&C. In fact, Fallout 1 has no significant consequences at all.

That's bullshit. If you don't patch the game and go to the Boneyard you might as well throw your PC away. Hugely impactful C&C right there.

I'll raise you motherfucker and say that Age of Decadence shits on Aoi Shito as not only is it a choose your own adventure, but mixes it with real RPG elements and skill checks.

Faggot, we're talking about the first two Fallout games, not the one you played...

Which is outside the scope of a discussion about what C&C is and what games do it right, LOL.

Also, define "good game" while I ROFL.

"Is somehow superior to PS:T" when discussing C&C in accordance to the definition he gave, actually.

I never denied Aoi Shiro being primitive. It being so, however, does nothing but add insult to injury.

And where precisely did I deny that? Oh, right. Nowhere. Lalala.



Also, delicious butthurt detected. Cry some more, bitch.

Somebody searching for Command and Conquer on google will probably end up on this thread, holy shit...