We're going to be adding some advertisements to the forums! If you notice any weirdness around this or spot bad/inappropriate ads, please make a thread in the bugs forum.

Cyberpunk 2077 - It Can't Get Darker Than Night City, Right?

145791099

Posts

  • TychoCelchuuuTychoCelchuuu PIGEON Registered User regular
    edited January 2013
    There's not much on topic to talk about, really. We just have a short trailer that doesn't make a ton of sense (why are the police shooting at her when the other police officer is standing right there?) and almost no story details aside from that Psycho Squad exists and is awesome.

    edit: and even as I say that, here is an article with more info about the game.

    TychoCelchuuu on
  • RookRook Registered User regular
    Eumerin wrote: »
    Totally off-topic so I'll spoiler this.
    Deckard was not a replicant. Period. I could probably write a thesis on how the film goes out of its way to prove to us that he's not. Instead I'll give this short reason, and IMHO, it's the only reason anyone would need:

    The police department would have to be part of a very large and detailed conspiracy in which they agreed to allow a Tyrell Corp Nexus model skinjob carte blanche in which to do police work. These guys hunt these things down and kill them on sight. In what world does that sort of ingrained prejudice just simply up and remove itself from the very nature of those officials? (It doesn't.) And why would those same officers EVER agree to a "pilot program" in which the end result is that they would one day be replaced by the very illegals they hunt down for a living? (They wouldn't.)

    Now, in some alternate universe, I'm sure there's a version of the film where Deckard-as-replicant actually works, but not a single version of the film that exists in this universe does.

    iirc, Ridley Scott says he is. Harrison Ford and the guy who wrote the script (I think - I know it's someone important to the storyline) say that he isn't.

    Take that as you will.

    Ridley Scott probably thought Prometheus was a good film, so I'm not sure I trust his opinion.

    AxenPreciousBodilyFluidsTechnicus Rex
  • Commander ZoomCommander Zoom Registered User regular
    Also also, while there's some support for it in the source material, the psychology and mayyyybe the neurology/cognitive biology/other science, the real purpose of Humanity/Essence/Empathy/etc etc was always, when you dug down to the gritty game-mechanical level, a limit to keep the combat monster players of the group from turning their characters into brain-jars mounted in lethal combat robots, because hey, they (the players) wouldn't be experiencing any of the horrifying consequences of that.

    There's also some chicken-and-egg wiggle room involved; one could argue that someone who'd have a perfectly good arm cut off or their ****ing eyes removed, not to repair a defect but simply to make them more combat-effective, doesn't exactly have a "normal" outlook or relation to their body or other humans to begin with. The cyber isn't so much the cause as the expression, in that case.

    And to combine these threads, I think it would be rather scary to run into an actual person who thought and behaved like someone playing a game. Someone who walks through gunfire because they don't really feel it, and looks at you like you aren't real, just some flat boring NPC that they might decide to shoot, stab, ****, whatever - just on a whim. If they can somehow restore from a saved game backup, or roll a new character have their armored braincase installed in a new body, even death would be no more than a temporary inconvenience.

    steam_sig.png
    Steam, Warframe: Megajoule
  • TychoCelchuuuTychoCelchuuu PIGEON Registered User regular
    Like I mentioned before, I've never played the RPG, but one thing I often hear is that it really pushed the lethality of combat - a few bullets could kill you and so on. I wonder if they'll go for that kind of feeling in the game. If any RPG developer is brave enough to do it, it's CD Projekt - they made The Witcher 2 fairly tough and made most of surviving that hinge on your ability to dodge, especially at higher difficulty levels. Good analogs for this in shooting games would maybe be the original Splinter Cell, Splinter Cell: Conviction, and maybe more traditional cover shooters like Gears of War but with the difficulty turned up. If gunfights focus mostly on stealth, tactics, cover, and careful planning/maneuvering, I think that would be pretty sweet. Hell, even Deus Ex 3 works a lot like this, especially at higher difficulty levels. I'd like that much more than any other option for the combat, I think, unless they wanted to go full on tactical/turn based, which I figure is unlikely.

  • DrakeDrake Edgelord Trash Below the ecliptic plane.Registered User regular
    edited January 2013
    Or for that matter the high water tactical shooters like the early Rainbow Six games, the last two SWAT games and the ArmA series.

    I'd love to see that level of lethality and detail in the gun-play of a cyberpunk game.

    Drake on
    Caveman Paws
  • EumerinEumerin Registered User regular
    If they can somehow restore from a saved game backup, or roll a new character have their armored braincase installed in a new body, even death would be no more than a temporary inconvenience.

    There's a hilarious sequence in Throne of Bhaal (the add-on for Baldur's Gate 2) that illustrates this.
    At one point, you're told that you need to go retrieve an item from some kobolds. Your character disgustedly comments on the absurdity of a super high level party like yours going after a bunch of extremely weak low level fodder, and the quest giver points out that you have an alternative. There's a nearby group of stone statues that happen to be the remains of a low level adventuring party. You can restore them to life, and then give *them* a quest to go retrieve the item for you. Or you can go get it yourself.

    If you restore the low level party, you impress upon them the critical importance to the entire world of the epic quest that you're sending them off on (seriously; it's pretty funny dialogue), and they set off to retrieve the item. One week passes, and they return. And they hand you the item. And then you see little dialogue comments pop up on your screen along these lines... "Hey, [low level party leader]. I bet we can take them. Let's go for it." The low level party whips out their weapons and attacks your party, causing your character to automatically transform into the avatar of Bhaal and slaughter them all. And then you see the following on the screen - "[low level party leader] reloads."

    You see, the low level party was acting a lot like some players - i.e. go along with a seemingly powerful NPC right up until the moment he or she was no longer critical to the quest, and then try and kill that NPC more or less just because the NPC was there. So just like a real player, the low level party attempted to test themselves against the "NPC" (i.e. your protagonist). Of course they failed, but that's what the save game feature is for, right?
    but one thing I often hear is that it really pushed the lethality of combat - a few bullets could kill you and so on.

    Friday Night Firefight. According to the comments in the earlier editions of Cyberpunk (i.e. 2013 and 2020), it was modeled after real life results. In short, taking a bullet is probably going to hurt a *lot* at the very least. No "Eh... that pistol did 1 point of damage to me. I'm fine." I think it was toned down somewhat by the time v3.0 rolled around, but I don't remember for certain.

  • jamesrajamesra Chicago, ILRegistered User regular
    Apostate wrote: »
    Eumerin wrote: »
    Rhan9 wrote: »
    I have such high hopes for this game, and I've been wondering for years why nobody used the Cyberpunk 2020 etc. for a game setting.

    You have to be able to do it "right". Otherwise the fans get ticked off (which has happened with at least one Shadowrun game). And you have to be willing to work within the constraints of someone else's setting (which can be a problem when you realize that where you're trying to take the story flies right into the face of some setting cornerstone).

    Finally, Shadowrun tends to get all of the attention when a Cyberpunk RPG is mentioned, even though it mixes magic in with everything else.

    iirc, R. Talsorian's other flagship game, Mekton, has been looked at with an eye toward turning it into a computer game, though obviously nothing has come of that yet.

    Mekton seems to be an odd choice as it was really just a generic system to make your own anime Mecha style game. They had some fluff but it was also a pretty generic setting. It was all good stuff as far as the rule system as it used the same Interlock system CP2020 did. But the only thing I can remember from the Mekton line with any thing resembling originality was the Jovian Chronicles. But that was made by Dreampod 9 the guys that went on to do Heavy Gear and I would wonder if they retained the license for it.

    (I know this is a couple of days old, but)

    Jovian Chronicles was awesome. I still have all my JC stuff; I sometimes page through my Ships of the Fleet books just to revel in all the crunchy hard-ish SF ship design. I loved the way that it mixed anime tropes with a more than usually plausible game world, and especially the way it was a game set pimarily in space that recognized that the solar system is really big and that things like Hohmann transfer orbits give the solar system a kind of shifting geography of trade routes and choke points. It would make a great game, provided a developer could be persuaded to focus on what was/is unique and interesting about it, rather than making it just a generic Anime Robots game. Especially something in the Mass Effect line, although ideally led by someone who can craft a good big picture story (I love ME. But I feel it suffered a bit from not having a strong, capable single hand guiding the story; all the characters were great, but the overall plot could be bit rough. On the other hand, that's something I can only say now, after thinking about it for almost a year, so).

    My hope for this is that it doesn't go to far in the transhumanism direction that Cyberpunk V.3 ended up taking; I just don't find transhumanism very interesting. And any kind of singularity driven story kind of snaps my WSOD into a thousand pieces. I really liked that teaser, though, for all it isn't game play. I like the direction it implies.

    "Everything in war is very simple, but the simplest thing is difficult. The difficulties accumulate and end by producing a kind of friction. . . . This tremendous friction . . . is everywhere in contact with chance, and brings about effects that cannot be measured, just because they are largely due to chance" Carl Von Clausezwitz. (1832),
  • ArchsorcererArchsorcerer Registered User regular
    Drake wrote: »
    Or for that matter the high water tactical shooters like the early Rainbow Six games, the last two SWAT games and the ArmA series.

    I'd love to see that level of lethality and detail in the gun-play of a cyberpunk game.

    Is vehicle combat part of the PnP game? Chases could be big in the sandbox environment.

    XBL - ArchSilversmith

    "We have years of struggle ahead, mostly within ourselves." - Made in USA
  • jamesrajamesra Chicago, ILRegistered User regular
    edited January 2013
    Synthesis wrote: »
    So "braindances" is a classier way of saying "swapping (cyber)brain cases?"
    It's a clever way of saying "we are making a Strange Days videogame without the license."

    I suppose that is a point of view. It is unclear to me under what conception of the nature of time it is possible for concepts introduced in a game/IP produced in 1988, (and then again in 1990) can meaningfully be accused of ripping off a movie from 1999, but if that is how causality rolls in your spacetime, knock yourself out.

    Alternately, it seems to me that it is JUST BARELY POSSIBLE that similar ideas might occur to different people at different times with any cross-pollination or, as you say "ripping off" occurring in any way. I know! Crazytown!; you're no doubt sitting there thinking that next I'm going to try and tell you that two different people invented Calculus at roughly the same time without communicating at all. It is almost as if, armed with broadly the same tools and contemplating similar issues different persons might arrive at similar ideas! I know. Mind. Blown.

    Or, in other words, you are being a goose. Please stop. It is unnecessary.

    EDIT: Strange Days came out in 95, and was set in 99. Damnit. Weirdly, I knew that -- I was a college freshman when it came out and thought about that as I wrote the post. Still managed to screw up the date, though.

    jamesra on
    "Everything in war is very simple, but the simplest thing is difficult. The difficulties accumulate and end by producing a kind of friction. . . . This tremendous friction . . . is everywhere in contact with chance, and brings about effects that cannot be measured, just because they are largely due to chance" Carl Von Clausezwitz. (1832),
  • EumerinEumerin Registered User regular
    Drake wrote: »
    Or for that matter the high water tactical shooters like the early Rainbow Six games, the last two SWAT games and the ArmA series.

    I'd love to see that level of lethality and detail in the gun-play of a cyberpunk game.

    Is vehicle combat part of the PnP game? Chases could be big in the sandbox environment.

    There are some very basic vehicle combat rules. They're mostly used when the flying ambulance from Trauma Team(tm) has to get in a fire fight with the chop docs from REO Meatwagon(tm) over who will get to recover your body. But basic stats for everything short of a tank was included in the rules, iirc.

    Keep in mind that Cyberpunk uses Interlock, which is the same system used by the much older game Mekton. And the latter is primarily about vehicle combat (and doesn't use ablative armor like Battletech). Vehicle combat rules would simply be a matter of adapting the rules from Mekton for Friday Night Firefight (which isn't that hard - most of the FNF rules are more for modeling how people react in combat, and what bullets due to unprotected flesh).

  • TychoCelchuuuTychoCelchuuu PIGEON Registered User regular
    edited January 2013
    jamesra wrote: »
    Synthesis wrote: »
    So "braindances" is a classier way of saying "swapping (cyber)brain cases?"
    It's a clever way of saying "we are making a Strange Days videogame without the license."

    I suppose that is a point of view. It is unclear to me under what conception of the nature of time it is possible for concepts introduced in a game/IP produced in 1988, (and then again in 1990) can meaningfully be accused of ripping off a movie from 1999, but if that is how causality rolls in your spacetime, knock yourself out.

    Alternately, it seems to me that it is JUST BARELY POSSIBLE that similar ideas might occur to different people at different times with any cross-pollination or, as you say "ripping off" occurring in any way. I know! Crazytown!; you're no doubt sitting there thinking that next I'm going to try and tell you that two different people invented Calculus at roughly the same time without communicating at all. It is almost as if, armed with broadly the same tools and contemplating similar issues different persons might arrive at similar ideas! I know. Mind. Blown.

    Or, in other words, you are being a goose. Please stop. It is unnecessary.

    EDIT: Strange Days came out in 95, and was set in 99. Damnit. Weirdly, I knew that -- I was a college freshman when it came out and thought about that as I wrote the post. Still managed to screw up the date, though.
    Yeah, I should've said Count Zero/Mona Lisa Overdrive instead. My mistake.

    TychoCelchuuu on
  • LanzLanz Registered User regular
    Taranis wrote: »
    Drake wrote: »
    Eumerin wrote: »
    Anything involving a human mind though, no matter what they do with their bodies? I'd still see them as human, but that's not the important part here. They aren't objects. They wouldn't be "more like an object" no matter how much of their organic body they replace with technology.

    I'd just like to interject one quick comment here -

    iirc, cyberpsychosis as defined by the game setting is basically what happens when a person starts to replace so much of their meat with metal that they actually start to think of themselves as an object instead of a person.

    Haha, that does complicate matters. I'm unfamiliar with the setting, so I was mostly discussing cyberization in general.

    Interesting fact though. Do they truly see themselves as an object or just as no longer human/a machine? I feel that might be an important distinction. And is it a case of this always happening when someone replaces too much of their body, or a certain percentage of those that do?

    The whole idea of how psyberpsychosis works in this game reminds me of the idea that our consciousness resides within our bodies as a whole, not just the neurons or nervous system. I'm not super familiar with that concept but I do have the impression that it's backed up by some solid science.

    From what I've read, consciousness is most likely an emergence of both the brain's 'software' and 'hardware,' but not the nerves connecting to the limbs and organs themselves. Granted we don't know what exactly produces consciousness, or even what it is, but we have no reason to believe that it's tied to anything other than the brain itself. Of course losing limbs and organs would likely have a psychological impact, but as of yet there's no reason to believe that a part of our consciousness would be lost. I'm highly interested in this subject, so if you can find a link to an article referencing this concept I'd love to read it.

    The brain is definitely the seat of consciousness, but the body is such a connected system that there are definitely other biological factors which influence consciousness. For instance, in a theoretical brain-box scenario, you've eliminated adrenal glands, sexual organs/glands, etc - organs that produce hormones that definitely influence personality and behaviour. So who's to say how much losing one's physical body would actually affect ones identity? And that's not to mention the pure psychological changes resulting in such a drastic shift in self-image and how we're perceived by others.

    When we say "brain in the box" are we talking like, a brain in a box, or an emulated brain in a computer system?

    Because if it's the latter, if you're at the point that you can emulate the brain, you could probably emulate the psychological effects of hormones I would think

    waNkm4k.jpg?1
  • LanzLanz Registered User regular
    Rook wrote: »
    Eumerin wrote: »
    Totally off-topic so I'll spoiler this.
    Deckard was not a replicant. Period. I could probably write a thesis on how the film goes out of its way to prove to us that he's not. Instead I'll give this short reason, and IMHO, it's the only reason anyone would need:

    The police department would have to be part of a very large and detailed conspiracy in which they agreed to allow a Tyrell Corp Nexus model skinjob carte blanche in which to do police work. These guys hunt these things down and kill them on sight. In what world does that sort of ingrained prejudice just simply up and remove itself from the very nature of those officials? (It doesn't.) And why would those same officers EVER agree to a "pilot program" in which the end result is that they would one day be replaced by the very illegals they hunt down for a living? (They wouldn't.)

    Now, in some alternate universe, I'm sure there's a version of the film where Deckard-as-replicant actually works, but not a single version of the film that exists in this universe does.

    iirc, Ridley Scott says he is. Harrison Ford and the guy who wrote the script (I think - I know it's someone important to the storyline) say that he isn't.

    Take that as you will.

    Ridley Scott probably thought Prometheus was a good film, so I'm not sure I trust his opinion.

    I'd say it's still valid.
    The thing to think about there too is, if Ford doesn't think Deckard is a replicant, how does that play into his performance. That is: The replicant doesn't realize he or she is a replicant [see: Rachel's refusal at first to accept her memories were all copied off Tyrell's niece]

    waNkm4k.jpg?1
  • TaranisTaranis Registered User regular
    edited January 2013
    Lanz wrote: »
    Taranis wrote: »
    Drake wrote: »
    Eumerin wrote: »
    Anything involving a human mind though, no matter what they do with their bodies? I'd still see them as human, but that's not the important part here. They aren't objects. They wouldn't be "more like an object" no matter how much of their organic body they replace with technology.

    I'd just like to interject one quick comment here -

    iirc, cyberpsychosis as defined by the game setting is basically what happens when a person starts to replace so much of their meat with metal that they actually start to think of themselves as an object instead of a person.

    Haha, that does complicate matters. I'm unfamiliar with the setting, so I was mostly discussing cyberization in general.

    Interesting fact though. Do they truly see themselves as an object or just as no longer human/a machine? I feel that might be an important distinction. And is it a case of this always happening when someone replaces too much of their body, or a certain percentage of those that do?

    The whole idea of how psyberpsychosis works in this game reminds me of the idea that our consciousness resides within our bodies as a whole, not just the neurons or nervous system. I'm not super familiar with that concept but I do have the impression that it's backed up by some solid science.

    From what I've read, consciousness is most likely an emergence of both the brain's 'software' and 'hardware,' but not the nerves connecting to the limbs and organs themselves. Granted we don't know what exactly produces consciousness, or even what it is, but we have no reason to believe that it's tied to anything other than the brain itself. Of course losing limbs and organs would likely have a psychological impact, but as of yet there's no reason to believe that a part of our consciousness would be lost. I'm highly interested in this subject, so if you can find a link to an article referencing this concept I'd love to read it.

    The brain is definitely the seat of consciousness, but the body is such a connected system that there are definitely other biological factors which influence consciousness. For instance, in a theoretical brain-box scenario, you've eliminated adrenal glands, sexual organs/glands, etc - organs that produce hormones that definitely influence personality and behaviour. So who's to say how much losing one's physical body would actually affect ones identity? And that's not to mention the pure psychological changes resulting in such a drastic shift in self-image and how we're perceived by others.

    When we say "brain in the box" are we talking like, a brain in a box, or an emulated brain in a computer system?

    Because if it's the latter, if you're at the point that you can emulate the brain, you could probably emulate the psychological effects of hormones I would think

    It wouldn't matter, because a brain simulation would still be so fundamentally different that the resulting consciousness wouldn't be what we'd consider human. You can't simply simulate the brain's structure and all of its electrical activity as a computer program to create human consciousness, because they are inextricably linked. Plus there are differences inherent in the way that a computer operates compared to the way that the brain operates. For example a circuit can carry information something like four or five orders of magnitude faster than a neuron. That would have a pretty profound effect on any sort of analogous consciousness.

    Basically you can't change the hardware without changing the software, because as far as the brain is concerned they're the same thing.

    Taranis on
    EH28YFo.jpg
  • DrakeDrake Edgelord Trash Below the ecliptic plane.Registered User regular
    The Cassini Division is a fun post cyberpunk novel by Ken MacLeod that plays with that particular idea of trans-humanism. The gist of it goes like this; A large group of wealthy and talented "elite" led by an eccentric visionary upload their consciousness into an AI construct in a bid for immortality. What results is no longer human. The resulting war between humanity and what becomes known as The Jovians or Fast Ones radically alters mans very perceptions of the technology they depend on. Much of it becomes completely unsafe and open to Jovian manipulations. Something as simple as a radio becomes a memetic weapon that can be used to program people to do whatever the Jovians wish. Including commit suicide or removing safeguards from even more potent tech. Mankind manages to isolate themselves from the Jovians, who now exist within a Gray Goo Nanotech Swarm that resides within the upper layers of Jupiter's atmosphere. One of the key components of the isolation is the Cassini Division. An independent military unit whose sole responsibility is ensuring that the Jovians cannot strike at humanity again.

    Yeah, Ken MacLeod has some kind of imagination and writes some fun stuff.

    Taranis
  • Just_Bri_ThanksJust_Bri_Thanks Seething with rage from a handbasket.Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited January 2013
    If you guys get the opportunity, read a copy of "Listen up, you primitive Screwheads." You won't regret it.

    Edit: I see I am a little slow on that. No matter, the point stands.

    Just_Bri_Thanks on
    We are the skeletons in our closets.
    We are the monsters under our beds.
  • AxenAxen My avatar is Excalibur. Yes, the sword.Registered User regular
    edited January 2013
    One of my favorite "trans-human" (well, maybe not exactly "trans") type moral quandary was in River of the Gods.

    Wealthy families would pay doctors to modify their unborn children so that the kids would be as perfect as a human could get. The kids were just straight up better in every way compared to naturally born children. Plus the kids had twice the average lifespan as a normal human, but (and it was kind of a big one) they aged at half the rate.

    So a pretty big moral/ethical question that arose from these "super kids" is that while they looked as though they were 12-14 years old they were actually in their twenties. Thus allowed all the privileges that comes with being an adult. Which meant a lot of, well, bad things. For one they were legally allowed to drink and smoke. Plus do drugs (which was still illegal). Have sex or get married. The result was that a lot of these "perfect" humans pretty much destroyed their bodies because they were free to indulge in all the vices they wanted, despite the fact that their bodies were still developing.

    Special laws had to be passed to protect the rights of "normal" people when it came to work. Who would you rather hire, the epitome of human perfection who can out think and out work any normal human and who will be unlikely to ever get sick? Or your normal human with normal human limitations?

    River of the Gods also has the distinction of featuring a robot I legitimately would find terrifying. In effect they were mobile landmines. Basically an airplane would drop them on enemy positions. The little robots would unfold and start walking around. The robots/mines would seek out human heat signatures, jump on the target, and detonate. So hundreds of baseball sized, exploding, spider-bots would move en masse across a battlefield like a freaking herd of death. IIRC, I think they had some sort of fail-safe built in like automatically deactivating after 30 minutes or something. However, I don't think they could tell friend from foe (or civilian).

    Axen on
    A Capellan's favorite sheath for any blade is your back.
  • testsubject23testsubject23 King of No Sleep ZzzzzzzRegistered User regular
    Lanz wrote: »
    Taranis wrote: »
    Drake wrote: »
    Eumerin wrote: »
    Anything involving a human mind though, no matter what they do with their bodies? I'd still see them as human, but that's not the important part here. They aren't objects. They wouldn't be "more like an object" no matter how much of their organic body they replace with technology.

    I'd just like to interject one quick comment here -

    iirc, cyberpsychosis as defined by the game setting is basically what happens when a person starts to replace so much of their meat with metal that they actually start to think of themselves as an object instead of a person.

    Haha, that does complicate matters. I'm unfamiliar with the setting, so I was mostly discussing cyberization in general.

    Interesting fact though. Do they truly see themselves as an object or just as no longer human/a machine? I feel that might be an important distinction. And is it a case of this always happening when someone replaces too much of their body, or a certain percentage of those that do?

    The whole idea of how psyberpsychosis works in this game reminds me of the idea that our consciousness resides within our bodies as a whole, not just the neurons or nervous system. I'm not super familiar with that concept but I do have the impression that it's backed up by some solid science.

    From what I've read, consciousness is most likely an emergence of both the brain's 'software' and 'hardware,' but not the nerves connecting to the limbs and organs themselves. Granted we don't know what exactly produces consciousness, or even what it is, but we have no reason to believe that it's tied to anything other than the brain itself. Of course losing limbs and organs would likely have a psychological impact, but as of yet there's no reason to believe that a part of our consciousness would be lost. I'm highly interested in this subject, so if you can find a link to an article referencing this concept I'd love to read it.

    The brain is definitely the seat of consciousness, but the body is such a connected system that there are definitely other biological factors which influence consciousness. For instance, in a theoretical brain-box scenario, you've eliminated adrenal glands, sexual organs/glands, etc - organs that produce hormones that definitely influence personality and behaviour. So who's to say how much losing one's physical body would actually affect ones identity? And that's not to mention the pure psychological changes resulting in such a drastic shift in self-image and how we're perceived by others.

    When we say "brain in the box" are we talking like, a brain in a box, or an emulated brain in a computer system?

    Because if it's the latter, if you're at the point that you can emulate the brain, you could probably emulate the psychological effects of hormones I would think

    I was talking more jarred meatyness than emulation. Emulation presents its own set of problems - science fiction is rife with stories of people uploading consciousness and it going wrong. The terrifying implication being that you wouldn't know that you'd been changed; you'd feel totally normal after the transfer, even if "kill all humans" was your next apparently logical thought.

    camo_sig2.png
    Steam: Chaos Introvert | Twitch.tv: Chaos_Introvert | R*SC: Chaos_Introvert | PSN: testsubject23
  • FawstFawst The road to awe.Registered User regular
    Lanz wrote: »
    Rook wrote: »
    Eumerin wrote: »
    Totally off-topic so I'll spoiler this.
    Deckard was not a replicant. Period. I could probably write a thesis on how the film goes out of its way to prove to us that he's not. Instead I'll give this short reason, and IMHO, it's the only reason anyone would need:

    The police department would have to be part of a very large and detailed conspiracy in which they agreed to allow a Tyrell Corp Nexus model skinjob carte blanche in which to do police work. These guys hunt these things down and kill them on sight. In what world does that sort of ingrained prejudice just simply up and remove itself from the very nature of those officials? (It doesn't.) And why would those same officers EVER agree to a "pilot program" in which the end result is that they would one day be replaced by the very illegals they hunt down for a living? (They wouldn't.)

    Now, in some alternate universe, I'm sure there's a version of the film where Deckard-as-replicant actually works, but not a single version of the film that exists in this universe does.

    iirc, Ridley Scott says he is. Harrison Ford and the guy who wrote the script (I think - I know it's someone important to the storyline) say that he isn't.

    Take that as you will.

    Ridley Scott probably thought Prometheus was a good film, so I'm not sure I trust his opinion.

    I'd say it's still valid.
    The thing to think about there too is, if Ford doesn't think Deckard is a replicant, how does that play into his performance. That is: The replicant doesn't realize he or she is a replicant [see: Rachel's refusal at first to accept her memories were all copied off Tyrell's niece]
    Blade Runner is the new 2001!!!

    Tube wrote:
    yes Chris Evans make a good smell in me
  • rRootagearRootagea MadisonRegistered User regular
    But how cool would it be to have a computerized replica of yourself, who thinks just like you do, and could work on stuff concurrently with yourself.

  • AxenAxen My avatar is Excalibur. Yes, the sword.Registered User regular
    edited January 2013
    rRootagea wrote: »
    But how cool would it be to have a computerized replica of yourself, who thinks just like you do, and could work on stuff concurrently with yourself.

    With unlimited access to the internet, no need to eat or sleep, and no societal pressure to conform I'd imagine my digital self would be far less productive then the meatbag version. :P

    edit-

    Me: Come on dude, we gotta get this work done!
    Digital Me: Fuck you dude, I'm watching videos of kittens being cute.
    Me: Well I gotta eat!
    Digital Me: Well, that sounds like a personal problem.

    Axen on
    A Capellan's favorite sheath for any blade is your back.
  • testsubject23testsubject23 King of No Sleep ZzzzzzzRegistered User regular
    rRootagea wrote: »
    But how cool would it be to have a computerized replica of yourself, who thinks just like you do, and could work on stuff concurrently with yourself.

    The computerized replica would realize that it can work 1000 times faster than it's meatspace progenitor, and would also be jealous of its counterpart's (albeit meager) sexual capability. One of us would not survive.

    camo_sig2.png
    Steam: Chaos Introvert | Twitch.tv: Chaos_Introvert | R*SC: Chaos_Introvert | PSN: testsubject23
  • rRootagearRootagea MadisonRegistered User regular
    edited January 2013
    Well assuming you don't hate yourself, and have no problems with working for yourself, then finding yourself inside a computer with enhanced capabilities and knowing you're just a copy shouldn't be too terrible right? It bypasses the unwilling subjugation thing entirely! There could maybe be a set time to live limit, based on the estimated completion time of the task.
    The only potential problem I can think of is a duplicator situation from calvin and hobbes, where the duplicate doesn't want to work either and creates a duplicate, who creates a duplicate, who creates a duplicate.

    rRootagea on
  • TaranisTaranis Registered User regular
    Even in the highly unlikely event that perfect brain simulation was possible, I'd still prefer to keep my brain. The existential crisis that would result from losing my brain would be maddening.

    If this game delves deeply into this topic at all, I will have gotten my money's worth. Luckily CDP seems to have some pretty competent writers who are familiar with philosophy, so I've got high hopes.

    EH28YFo.jpg
  • KadokenKadoken Giving Ends to my Friends and it Feels Stupendous Registered User regular
    rRootagea wrote: »
    Well assuming you don't hate yourself, and have no problems with working for yourself, then finding yourself inside a computer with enhanced capabilities and knowing you're just a copy shouldn't be too terrible right? It bypasses the unwilling subjugation thing entirely! There could maybe be a set time to live limit, based on the estimated completion time of the task.
    The only potential problem I can think of is a duplicator situation from calvin and hobbes, where the duplicate doesn't want to work either and creates a duplicate, who creates a duplicate, who creates a duplicate.

    Scientific progress goes "Boink"?

    Elvenshae
  • Operative21Operative21 Registered User regular
    Like I mentioned before, I've never played the RPG, but one thing I often hear is that it really pushed the lethality of combat - a few bullets could kill you and so on.

    Indeed. They also had what I consider to be some of the most wonderful rules for armor that I've seen in any tabletop RPG. Not only did they have location specific armor ratings (like head, torso, left leg, right leg, right arm, left arm), they also had movement/combat penalties for wearing armor(s), rules for layering different types of armor (ie. what happens if you wear an armored jacket over an armored vest), rules for armor penetration, and even wear and tear on armor from prolonged combat engagements.

  • ArchsorcererArchsorcerer Registered User regular
    Making of the trailer next tuesday.

    XBL - ArchSilversmith

    "We have years of struggle ahead, mostly within ourselves." - Made in USA
  • rRootagearRootagea MadisonRegistered User regular
    edited January 2013
    Cyberpunk implies a certain amorality, unreality, fatality, and antihero; but without continuous open conflict, fact finding will probably be your primary activity in this game. So I hope the game uses a Dayz/Minecraft style of open world. So every player could be running around trying to get somewhere or do something different, but could team up if they wanted. Instances on a server might also have randomized corruption or macguffins.

    Permadeath on an established character sucks, but what if that only happens if someone pieces together the source of the memetic virus from all the suicide mobs you've been sending, assaults the proxy you used to broadcast that with, and fries the brain of anyone who connects to it again. Then you'll have to start from a civilian and stumble across some more stashed memories and equipment and personal plotline again.

    rRootagea on
  • EumerinEumerin Registered User regular
    Lanz wrote: »
    Rook wrote: »
    Eumerin wrote: »
    Totally off-topic so I'll spoiler this.
    Deckard was not a replicant. Period. I could probably write a thesis on how the film goes out of its way to prove to us that he's not. Instead I'll give this short reason, and IMHO, it's the only reason anyone would need:

    The police department would have to be part of a very large and detailed conspiracy in which they agreed to allow a Tyrell Corp Nexus model skinjob carte blanche in which to do police work. These guys hunt these things down and kill them on sight. In what world does that sort of ingrained prejudice just simply up and remove itself from the very nature of those officials? (It doesn't.) And why would those same officers EVER agree to a "pilot program" in which the end result is that they would one day be replaced by the very illegals they hunt down for a living? (They wouldn't.)

    Now, in some alternate universe, I'm sure there's a version of the film where Deckard-as-replicant actually works, but not a single version of the film that exists in this universe does.

    iirc, Ridley Scott says he is. Harrison Ford and the guy who wrote the script (I think - I know it's someone important to the storyline) say that he isn't.

    Take that as you will.

    Ridley Scott probably thought Prometheus was a good film, so I'm not sure I trust his opinion.

    I'd say it's still valid.
    The thing to think about there too is, if Ford doesn't think Deckard is a replicant, how does that play into his performance. That is: The replicant doesn't realize he or she is a replicant [see: Rachel's refusal at first to accept her memories were all copied off Tyrell's niece]

    Except that, as I noted, Ford's not the only one who thinks that way. Someone else important in the envisioning of the character (I think it was the guy who wrote the script, though I'm not 100% about that) also believed the same as Ford.

    Cyberpunk implies a certain amorality, unreality, and fatality; but without continuous open conflict, fact finding will probably be your primary activity in this game.
    So I hope the game uses a Dayz/Minecraft style of open world. So every player could be running around trying to get somewhere or do something different, but could team up if they wanted. Instances on a server might also have randomized corruption or macguffins.

    Er...

    I find it highly unlikely that this game will be anything other than a straight-up single player game, just like the Witcher games.

  • TychoCelchuuuTychoCelchuuu PIGEON Registered User regular
    Yeah if this isn't a single player RPG I'm going to be sad and surprised.

  • rRootagearRootagea MadisonRegistered User regular
    edited January 2013
    I feel like the openness of an open world directly trades off with the strength of a linear narrative.
    I'd prefer less prescribed video game stories, and more video game systems to interact with.

    rRootagea on
  • WybornWyborn GET EQUIPPED Registered User regular
    rRootagea wrote: »
    I feel like the openness of an open world directly trades off with the strength of a linear narrative.
    I'd prefer less video game stories, and more video game systems.

    Again: Witcher games. Open world presented in segments. Very strong stories. Best RPGs in a long time.

    If this doesn't play like a dark future version of the Witcher with a SWAT TEAM MADE UP OF CYBORG SERIAL KILLERS then I'm gonna be bummed

    dN0T6ur.png
    TychoCelchuuuchiasaur11
  • DrakeDrake Edgelord Trash Below the ecliptic plane.Registered User regular
    edited January 2013
    Indications are that it's going to be even more open than The Witcher games.

    Drake on
  • ZenitramZenitram Registered User regular
    edited January 2013
    This is making me want to play The Witcher games. I own both but only played the first few hours of the first one before I lost my Steam connectivity for months. Ultimately got lost in the shuffle.

    Zenitram on
    steam_sig.png
  • P10P10 An Idiot With Low IQ Registered User regular
    I trust CD Projekt a lot. Their games are good and their enhanced edition of Witcher 1 being free was awesome. Will buy this game and look forward to it

    Shameful pursuits and utterly stupid opinions
  • OpposingFarceOpposingFarce Registered User regular
    I am definitely enticed by the open world nature. However, I can basically predict what the storyline will be depending on player character information being released. I hope it surprises me.

  • LorahaloLorahalo Registered User regular
    I am definitely enticed by the open world nature. However, I can basically predict what the storyline will be depending on player character information being released. I hope it surprises me.

    CD Projekt are very good at their stories. The Witcher 1/2 were just full of these tiny little side stories that added so much to the atmosphere.

    I have a podcast about Digimon called the Digital Moncast, on Audio Entropy.
  • OpposingFarceOpposingFarce Registered User regular
    I know. But say you start off in Psycho squad, and keep adding to yourself to be stronger. Then one day they come after you. I just hope it's not as predictable. I never got into the Witcher series, never liked the combat and found alchemy boring, which was a problem because it was so necessary. I will say the first hour of Witcher 1 had some decent story, even if it was confusing given that I never read a Witcher book and the whole amnesia thing.

    I like the themes this is dealing with more than Deus Ex HR, which was ok story wise, but failed when you find the main antagonist's motivations. It was the only part where it was surprising: how stupid the motivations were.

    The fact that we can make our own characters though is what I want. I like Geralt, and Adam Jensen is ok, but something about making your own is better. Even if you have to sacrifice some dialogue (like Dragon Age 1).

  • rRootagearRootagea MadisonRegistered User regular
    edited January 2013
    Well there is a convenient in-universe device for removing the openworld aspects in order to tell a logical string of consequences that explains someone or something. Perhaps in between bouts of open world shenanigans, you can pick up where you last left "Love in the Time of Cyberpsychosis".

    rRootagea on
  • BYToadyBYToady Registered User regular
    No what'll happen OpposingFarce, is that, the reason the Psycho Squad comes after you in the end, is because you were never part of the squad. You're just suffering from Cyberpsychosis.

    Dun dun dun!

    Battletag BYToady#1454
Sign In or Register to comment.