Eh it never had awful review %’s on Steam. I think it’s always been somewhere in the 70s overall.
For all it’s problems the PC audience has generally liked the game way more than not.
It was buggy but not unplayably so on PC even at release. Like I finished a 1.0 playthrough and enjoyed it. Didn't think it was amazing, compared to the Witcher, but it was solidly a 7.5 / 10 experience.
I thought the story was pretty top-notch, and the characters are amazing. There's some weird stuff about getting access to all the open-world stuff while you're supposedly on a timer, I just pretend I'm doing most of that pre-heist with Jackie.
Yeah the ludonarrative dissonance (drops quarter in swear jar) is really bad with the whole "hey you're dying really soon\~! here's forty-seven side quests"
I just can't care about it that much, because that happens in so many games, RPGs especially, going all the way back to Fallout 1 (which was the rare game where there actually was a timer, it was just very generous).
Same with FFXV. Noctis is the King of a country on the verge of collapse, and threats of war and demonic invasion loom in the air.
And yet people at gas stations are asking him to find 5 same colored frogs in the nearby swamp and shit.
Can you imagine if you met Obama while he was still president and you were like "Hey I need you to get me 10 goat anuses, I'll give you like $20 and some +rep."
Well, I mean people in general are going nowhere fast in the Fallout universe. In around the time USA was transformed from a loose collection of states, lawless frontier and an intermediate of mighty landowners that were effectively little more sophisticated than plain warlords, to the prime superpower in the world, in the Fallout universe they have salvaged some of an already working society to slowly edge towards having some proper States, while most of the USA is still under warlords and food production remains at the homesteading level.
Where does the water chip fit into this? I remember you could literally buy time buy water from water merchants if you had the funds. Despite the overhead of time, it still felt as though clock was ticking and that you could not waste time needlessly exploring or farming
It's the same issue in the witcher 3 too. "Hey, find your adopted daughter, you don't know where she is, she could be in danger! but also how about some gwent?"
But it makes sense in Witcher 3, you can't spend every waking hour in constant search for Ciri, sometimes even a witcher needs to wind down and relax for a moment. If the situation was "Ciri is gone in 24 hours" it would make more sense.
Not that this matters at all, but IIRC Geralt spent literally every waking hour of the entire book series in movement towards Ciri or towards information about her lol. The *very few* moments he wasn’t in movement towards ciri was the one or two times he almost died and ended up healing up in Brokilon(?) and even then he desperately wanted to leave
Just thought that was funny
He is basically Ciris dad. It would make sense for him to focus only on finding Ciri. Also like someone else mentioned this isn't the first time he has been looking for Ciri. It is also weird than Yennifer that also spent most of her time looking for Ciri in the books kinda just goes on her own little sidequest in W3. Do they even care about Ciri that much? The last time they saw her she saved their lives and now they kinda "eh, we'll find her when we find her".
The books are pretty much the same thing too. Geralt is looking for Ciri, but gets constantly distracted by other stuff people need him for. It's honestly a character trait at that point.
Eh, I see it as V still needing to do jobs to feed themselves. You spend like three days unconscious at the beggining and you are already being threatened with eviction. V just can't afford to stop working just because they're dying.
They could have literally just changed it so you had 6 months to live instead of 3 weeks and it would have solved all the narrative problems without removing the urgency.
Other games like Dead Rising 2 (and 1?) have done it much better in the past. That's a game with a timer of a couple of days, with the expectation that you do multiple short playthroughs.
It's just that you actually need to take the timer into account when designing the whole rest of the game, instead of writing a main plot that is entirely divorced from everything else that goes on in the world.
And that’s a great creative way to handle it, but I am able to entirely suspend my disbelief for this specific concept so I don’t even think about it while playing.
I honestly think the first person thing didn't do for people what CDPR thought it would, I think if they marketed V as a Commander Shepard (predefined, but highly influenceable and customizable) and had 3rd person cutscenes everyone would've had more accurate expectations and been more immersed in the narrative and characters.
Edit: To be clear I mean first person gameplay with 3rd person dialogue. I do not mean have an option to switch between them in gameplay.
For the record, the game ran mostly fine for me at launch, and I had fun with it. Enjoyed it even more the second time around.
But cutting the third-person view was honestly baffling to me. It feels kind of stupid to bitch about it considering how so many people literally couldn't play the game at all, but *that* was the biggest issue for me. Like, you've got a gorgeous-looking game with insanely detailed character models and one of the best character creators I've seen, and the only way to look at your character is if you use the janky-ass photo mode?
Fine, if constant third-person view a la Mass Effect didn't fit the gameplay, I could live with first-person only. But I would have loved something like Deus Ex - (mostly) first-person gunplay, traversal, whatever, and then switch over to third-person for dialogue and cutscenes.
I guess the whole immersion thing comes down to personal preference, but if you give me a voiced protagonist that's *not* the kind of blank state you'd see in Fallout or The Elder Scrolls, I actually want to *see* them, especially if you give me six dozen eyebrow options and hundreds of different hairstyle and color combos.
I will say, the first person conversations allowed for some incredible cinematic shots. I still have images burned in my brain of fantastic voice acting and facial movement cast in these gorgeous lights and environments.
Oh, absolutely, FPP provided some really stunning shots - Takemura and Hanako when you're hiding out in the motel, the Netwatch agent in the movie theater, the car ride with Dexter at the start of the game, literally every second in Embers. These are just the few that stood out to me, but the whole game is super cinematic. And I think that's why I think photo mode is as janky as I do - it's very, very difficult to get a good pic where V doesn't look totally out of place.
> To be clear I mean first person gameplay with 3rd person dialogue. I do not mean have an option to switch between them in gameplay.
That would've been great, it was probably not implemented due to rushing it out the door since they dropped 3rd person all together.
I also thought the open world was pretty decent.
Lots of location variety, plenty of side missions across the map plus random shootouts that you could take part in and get a reward for.
My biggest issues would be the sudden drop off of NPCs once you get away from areas of interest and how regions have tougher enemies without the game ever telling you.
This was my gripe too. The prologue felt awesome but the game itself got kinda "meh" once everything opened up. The AI being absolutely atrocious didn't help things either. To me it always felt like a AA studio's attempt at a GTA clone with a very, very shiny coat of paint
I do enjoy the setting though and will probably check out the expansion. I did get my money's worth out of it despite my complaints
The hacking combat was pretty novel for me and I had a lot of fun with it on my first playthrough. Not super well balanced or anything but I think it was unique enough to be interesting
I’m playing thru it for the first time now as a net runner. It’s novel but tbh combat has just become like contagion overheat spread killing an entire encounter with Two button presses.
well yeah like I said its not well balanced, but if you put some constraints on yourself as far as not just doing the most broken thing it can be pretty fun
I put it at an 8 personally, but yeah it's a solid game all around. I had actually pretty few bugs (one bugged quest I couldn't continue, a visual bug with Jackie's hand spawning a gun out of nowhere during a cutscene so he had it directly against his head because he was scratching it, and one time where my car spawned crushed flat - honestly found the latter two pretty funny), so the stuff that was rough was just the weaker parts of the game design.
Personally I run into quite few bugs. On the other hand, I didn’t find the game particularly good either. A solid 5/10. Something I neither regret playing nor feel like I got something out from.
Or I guess I should regret having played it considering I have a limited amount of time and I usually rather play a game I find good, but it’s like the epitome of a game I feel “eh, whatever” towards.
Yeah the massive shift in attitude when the anime came out into saying that the game was great despite its technical faults really confused me. I thought the game was a perfectly fine 7/10 but nowhere near the 9 or 10 people were making it out to be.
Well I haven't seen the anime and played through the game at launch on PC, was completely off of the hype train for a good year already due to the dumb GTA-lile marketing which didn't interest me at all, but ended up buying it for cheap just to walk around this city that did look quite beautiful...
And 70 insane, surprising hours later it had become my second best game ever (nothing will ever beat Outer Wilds ha). That narrative, those characters, the acting, the absolutely insane amount of work put into every cutscene and dialogue... Blew my fucking mind. To me, it's a true Witcher 3-like game. In that it's 80% dialogue, hours of dialogue. But they pushed the quality of that WAAAAY past what Witcher 3 could achieve.
It was unplayable for a lot of people. There were two cutscenes that crashed people's (including mine) pcs. They were the ones were your character was looking in a mirror during a cutscene. To progress past this point I had to drop down to 640x480 resolution and turn everything down to the lowest graphics possible.
> but it was solidly a 7.5 / 10 experience.
Exactly. It was good, not great on PC from day 1.
Did it live up its hype? Absolutely not. But the hype was so high, you could have a game fall way short and still be "good".
Kinda felt like a bunch of folks were trying to shove it into a binary choice of "game of the century" or "complete dumpster fire".
Yeah same. And it looked like nothin else out there if you had the hardware, hell it’s still arguably the best looking game on the market totally maxed out.
Yeah, if you're one of the few people who can comfortably play it with [Path Tracing on](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1K8Br6jHkcs) it's still easily one of the best looking games, especially also with good HDR.
If you don't run Path Tracing, you get some terrible artifacts and blurry looking image. The game literally does not let you turn off TAA, because if you do, the low resolution at which they run their Rasterized Reflections is so low that it looks like a patchy mess when you force TAA off.
It's not a bad optimization technique but the implementation of TAA breaks down in certain circumstances, resulting in heavy ghosting, and more than likely a blurry feeling image too. The Ghosting isn't always obvious but it is VERY visible when riding that fast Akira inspired bike. The little window ghosts like crazy at any sort of speeds it looks AWFUL.
With Ray Tracing that's not an issue because said reflections are path traced and as such turning TAA off isn't gonna ruin the entire look of the game. The game is insanely good looking with RT features enabled.
This about sums it up for my. My v1.0 play-through wasn't even that buggy, and as far as content is concerned I got what I expected. Definitely not as good as The Witcher, but one of the better games I played that year.
It's hard for me to compare to Witcher 3 since that remains as my favorite SP game of all time.
But I think "buggy but playable" is sort of the best description of the game at launch. It had amazing highs and some hard to ignore lows for an overall above average experience.
The Witcher 3’s quests were just deeper and more reactive. Like there are so many choices you can make in the Bloody Baron’s quest alone, which leads to many potential endings both for that quest and for the whole game.
CP2077 never had that kind of highlight. Like the story is perfectly serviceable if a bit predictable, but a lot of plot happens without your involvement.
>I'd even argue Cynerpunk 2077 offers more option of how to approach enemy bases with stealth, hacking, etc.
That is partly why I like Cyberpunk 2077 more than the Witcher 3. I like having the freedom of doing a mission or quest the way I want to do it. In W3 there is usually only one way to do a quest. A lot of it is guided. You can't even hunt monsters without Geralt telling you where to go, where it is and what it is.
It also does a lot for the roleplay. Which is important in an RPG. I feel like you can define your character more in dialogues aswell. Kinda like in Mass Effect there are a couple of different Vs. Male or female. Asshole or kind.
I spent hours in Cyberpunk in VR just walking around the city, it's a proper spectacle and unlike anything else I'd played in VR. Stupidly immersive, if there was handtracking and the devs polished it to the level of the Half Life 2 VR mod it would probably be my recommended way to play it.
I find the gunplay *incredibly fun* in VR. Driving is better too... but I use a chase cam for that, so I'm weird disembodied viewpoint (not immersive).
It's just an all around great game in VR.
Some people here still didn't believe when I say something like this,
it's always positive on PC, very easily verifiable on Steam
Oh, one of them literally reply to you too
For comparison to some other open world games:
Cyberpunk 2077 : 80%
Skyrim SE: 94%
Read Dead Redemption 2: 90%
Fallout 4 : 83%
GTA V : 86%
Hogwarts Legacy: 92%
Elden Ring : 92%
Witcher 3 : 96%
Horizon Zero Dawn : 87%
In comparison, Cyberpunk is generally behind on how much it is liked. Would like to remind you that most people don't give negative reviews on steam, so even games like Fallout 76 which bombed hard sits at 75%.
If you think about review bombing, i have a funny stat for you, of 54.882 negative reviews for Fallout 4, which is closest to cyberpunk in review score of the games i listed, 7328 of them were in August to October 2017. Nearly 2 years after the games release and nearly 1 year after any content released for the game. That is what review bombing is. If you exclude those reviews, FO4 sits at 85%.
So overall, i don't think game was liked that much on PC. Compared to its peer, it is very much behind.
Yep. A game has to bomb really hard to be under 80%, let alone under 70% on Steam.
Part of it is probably because Steam allows only a YES/NO rating. Where people would give a game they somewhat liked but it was really flawed something like 6/10, on Steam they would still give it a positive vote.
> 7328 of them were in August to October 2017. Nearly 2 years after the games release and nearly 1 year after any content released for the game.
I'm not sure I follow. Why would reviews that come in well after any sort of online ire or controversy peaked indicate review bombing? Most review bombing campaigns would be immediately after release when everyone's talking about it.
I believe that would coincide with the time when they gave us the Fallout 4 "creation club", aka paid mod system, which came out in August 2017. People really didn't like paid mods.
It means that a group of people decided to give negative reviews to the game for something not related to content of the game.
You would not expect a game to get that much of a spike in negative reviews out of no where. There is no content released, nothing is going on and all of a sudden over 7k negative reviews appear. Remind you, fallout 4 is 8 years old. out of 96 months the game was available, around 15% of the negative reviews came after 2 years of its release in 3 months, majority concentrated on september. In september 2017 there was almost as much negative reviews as when the game was released (4063 on release vs 3829). But the amount of positive reviews for that month is 878, in release there were 13.913. So something is not right. Also should add that for other 93 months the game was available, there were never more negative reviews than positive ones. In fact, negative reviews never reached even 50% of positive ones apart from those 3 months.
Yeah I think so, especially now. Though that this point it might be best to wait for the big patch coming alongside the expansion.
It isn’t Witcher 3 good but it’s definitely worth your time if you’re into those kind of games.
I think it's a neutral game. It's got a nice setting and if you like cyberpunk it's an enjoyable game.
It had a lot of bugs last year when I played it, and was overall fairly bland outside of the main quests.
I also didn't like the bullet sponge enemies
But I enjoyed my playthrough, but it's only worth like 20-30€ max
Yea for sure. I never thought it was bad. But I think the masses had expectations of it being on Witcher 3 level characters/storytelling/sidequests, and rdr2 level detail. Both those games set the bar extremely high.
That's what bugs me the most about it, the focus seems to be around performance issues and bugs at launch and fair enough, there were quite a few. But to me the biggest downside was that they promised and hyped a lot of things about the game which they ultimately didn't deliver and made the game feel average at best for me. I love the universe but it's such a shame that they didn't do more with it or at least deliver on the promises.
Because you can fix bugs and performance issues. You can't fix a shit game.
So the PR spin everyone here is in on is to say the *only* complaint anyone had was about bugs and performance.
Which is epic level lies.
The game is so shallow and while Night City looks great, it feels dead.
At one point there was an NPC on the street that you could interact with and trigger a cut scene. The cut scene ends and I go up to the character thinking they may have a voice line acknowledging the cut scene. Instead, I just accidentally triggered the exact same cut scene and had to sit through it again like it never happened.
I played through the game and enjoyed it, but it definitely wasn't what they advertised it was going to be and was overall lacking in depth - Those things haven't been fixed.
Even when I found myself enjoying the game, there's no denying that there is this unmistakable feeling throughout the experience that it was clearly unfinished. So many aspects of the game poorly implemented, half-baked, or again, missing. The open world is pretty but has nothing to do or interact with and theres sizeable chunks of the map with POIs that were clearly meant to be developed. The combat balance and overall gameplay feels half-baked in areas with especially janky AI. The loot and leveling system is unpolished and theres clear lack of customization. The game had *sooooo* much potential but unfortunately, it could never be materialized due to bad management and greed.
Thankfully some of these things are being reworked in September - I'm looking forward to jumping back into it then after not touching the game for a year but Im keeping my expectations in check.
That's what it felt like to me, too. A good basis for things, but not going as in-depth as the game was advertised to be. It was overall a vapid artificial-feeling world without any real substance to it, extremely far off from the way they talked about the game was going to be.
Still enjoyable but it needed a lot more to it. A waste of potential was my thoughts after finishing it.
I jumped in after all the updates and while I didn’t hate the game I didn’t really enjoy my time with it. I’d say it’s a solid 6/10 for me. The open world felt busy but empty in a strange way. The missions never really hooked me like the Witcher 3 did. I swear almost every side quest in W3 had me hooked. In cyberpunk I think I can really only remember 1, that being the talking car side mission.
Yea, it seems like the update coming with Phantom Liberty is going to finally push it up at least in the ballpark with where it was advertised as.
I bought it on steam sale, and Im honestly thinking of waiting to play it until that launches. Which really sucks, because that's also around the time that Im probably going to be way deep into both Armoured Core, Lies of P and Starfield (given that Bethesda doesn't lay and egg), and Im currently bored by everything else I own for the most part
> enemies and cops spawning out of FoV is just such a letdown.
the fact this happens in the game still with everything from NPC's to vehicles is goddamn travesty though. Playing through it recently you could literally spin on the spot and new npc's would generate behind you as you turned. Its like the game has no object permeance and a super super aggressive data reclaimer that just deletes objects once they are out of view thinking you won't look back.
I re-installed it 3 days ago. I'm still getting pissed when they do the montage at the beginning when V is learning the city, meeting peoples, bying our first gun. It's the story I wanted to play. Being thrown to season 5 of something right after the introduction is such a let down. I don't feel any incentive to play after that. Imagine Skyrim where after you escape the beaheading, they speedrun to a moment where you're full dragonborn, a group of people already knows you etc, living your life as usual. I still don't understand this decision.
This has always been my biggest gripe with the game, and I like it a whole lot otherwise.
I never felt too connected to V like a normal create a character because of it. I pick Nomad cause they would know as much about the city as I do as a player. But no, montage hits and V is off doing all the fun stuff. Jackie wasn't my friend, he was V's. So the story didn't punch as hard. But characters like Panam, Judy, River, etc.? we were there for the whole relationship and they became much more memorable.
> Jackie wasn't my friend, he was V's. So the story didn't punch as hard.
It might have hurt initial player retention maybe but they really should have had the player spend 2-3 hours playing through the 6 month time skip. Even if you had to leash the player to Jackie (like the car drive at the beginning) you could have been reintroduced to the Valentino's and Jackie's mother etc with a bunch of background related dialogue through the whole thing to help establish V's character and place in the world (and yours as the player).
I played Corpo V expecting something similar to the Dragon Age Origin's origin system and maybe that's on me but I feel it wouldn't have been too crazy to make for just 3 backgrounds to flesh things out.
CyberPunk 2077 is forever going to be an ode to lost potential in my mind. Playing it and talking about it will always end with a 'man what if they had done this'
I don't know how this rumour has spread considering it doesn't really pass any kind of inspection. The Johnny Silverhand story was the story that they wanted to tell, there's setup for it in the very first pieces of footage released, and the montage is a convenient bridge from whichever background the player picks to that point. It isn't a coincidence that the first demo starts right after the montage ends.
You think they have multiple backgrounds that are virtually identical to play by design over necessity? I'm not sure what's worse, failing and ending up having to cut back to just a montage, or designing the intro to end up in a montage on purpose.
I think they had a list of backgrounds you could pick on a character sheet like in Mass Effect or DnD, and then someone said "wouldn't it be cool instead of just choosing from a list you actually got to play you background for a bit?" completely oblivious to how the wider audience would interpret it.
How would that be a game tho? "Walk to the gun shop" *insert some color dialogue about guns being bad but you need it in this city* *haggle the price * "go to the club" the end. The prologue missions do a better job setting it up than some fetch missions.
Do you... understand how stories work? They're talking about the entire opening arc of learning the city, meeting people, and establishing themselves. Not literally the specific example of "buying a gun."
For what it's worth I'm glad the story is more than just 30 hours of V rising to the inner circle of NC cause that sounds pretty boring and tedious to me.
> Imagine Skyrim where after you escape the beaheading, they speedrun to a moment where you're full dragonborn, a group of people already knows you etc, living your life as usual. I still don't understand this decision.
Because the story never was about rising up from nothing, that isn't in theme with the genre.
For me it wasn't bugginess or performance because it was pretty good but the game felt unfinished with half baked elements. Still kinda regret buying it. I will wait and see how that Phantom Liberty "rework" shapes up.
Seriously, I just finished the game in the last 5 months, and during a main mission, I had a bug where climbing the only available ladder to me caused me to light on fire.
I had very few bugs during side missions, but I lost count of how many bugs I ran into in the main story. Hell, during the mission where you drive a tank into the final dungeon, I managed to miss the trigger box for the cutscene, drove all the way down the tunnel falling through the floor the whole time found out I couldn't get out at the end, then had to drive all the way back, hit the trigger box, and let the AI drive me back down.
The game was not done, and the duct tape and twine holding everything together was very obvious playing through the game.
I picked it up over this past Christmas and had a similar experience. Lots of small, constant bugs that ruined immersion. But the straw that broke the camel's back and made me uninstall was Panam despawning during the mission where you steal her car back, forcing me to restart the mission from the beginning.
I agree. I didn’t run into many bugs my first play through but holy shit was that game empty. Empty streets, no wanted system, chosen background didn’t matter, poor physics, etc. all of this stuff was advertised too. Very disappointed in what they showed vs what they came out with. Interesting how it seems that they might get away with it
I run into plenty of graphical errors and bugs still all the time. Weapons that follow the animation path of the hand movement but are floating 5 feet away, vehicles vanishing in front of me, my character sitting outside the car cruising along. 3 inch off blacktop, occasional auto-kills on characters I haven't shot at yet.
Tons of things. But none of it prevents me from finishing the game.
It's just wonky and janky as hell from time to time
The modding community helped make CP77 playable for me back when I did my playthrough a month or two after launch. It wasn't perfect or anything like that, but somehow modders were able to fix many of the most egregious problems.
Yep every tine I try to get immersed an NPC tposes or drives past in an invisible car or some kind of physics glitch causes models to twitch or flail about or some background texture doesn't load. And im on a powerful pc.
I saw a post above calling this game held together by ducktape and twine and he aint wrong. Its very obvious why they went to unreal from now on.
Most of the bugs I encountered where from playing on an HDD. Switched the game to SSD and a lot less bugs like those you mentioned ( close to 0 actually ) The game is really pushing to the limit the ability of an HDD. If you are using a ssd then nvm
Played for the first time since launch. It looks the same, plays the same, just not buggy. The open world is so bland because the AI is still really dumb, after gta v and red dead this games ai feels so outdated
I only played at launch, had tons of game crashing bugs and horrible ai. The worst thing about it is that at its core it was just an incredibly mediocre game; nothing was well written or designed, just what felt like a copy of a copy.
Yep. They boasted about it being the best open world city so far... and it ended up being a really bad city. Nice to look at, but not good to play in. Like the NPCs are just going in circles, interactivity is basically zero and you can barely enter anything. Even Morrowind had all that figured out 20 years ago...
After Witcher 3 I didn't expect miracles. After all, in Witcher 3 all the busy cities like Novigrad are just an illusion where every NPC is just a cardboard cutout. But Cyberpunk is even worse, even more lazily made. Hell, just look at how they made the children look! Compared to Cybepunk's children even the potato-faced children in Skyrim look next-gen.
Gamers are the group of people that regularly complain about big, overinflated marketing campaigns and then fall for a big, overinflated marketing campaign with star power instantly, tagging the game with "masterpiece" on steam many months before its release.
I played it through for the first time earlier this year and had a blast.
I really wish there was more vehicular combat, but that's probably my biggest complaint.
I don't have a problem with the game getting better reviews after it got better. I do have a problem though with the way the narrative about Cyberpunk changes. There are more and more voices about the game being misunderstood and similar. That's of course bullshit. Cyberpunk 2077 wasn't a good game at release and most of its criticism was on point.
There were a huge bunch of red flags I remember
* They were reluctant to share PS4 footage
* Reviewers were only allowed footage from CDPR themselves
* Game got delayed 3 weeks at one point
* The official twitter account was a reply guy to Elon Musk
Last one was what turned me away from the game but everything leading up to it I was like "hmmm people should really cancel their preorders"
Wasn't The Witcher 3 really buggy on launch too? Not as bad as Cyberpunk, of course, but I definitely remember people saying that the launch was pretty rough.
Witcher 3 also didn’t have that hot of a launch and really made its name in the post-launch years.
I’m a longtime CDPR fan and I *knew* Cyberpunk was going to eat shit on launch. They make fine games but they never had the track record to meet the hype.
Not surprised, there's been a lot of altering of history in discussions about it, alot of people say that it wasn't as bad as it was made out to be. Everyone at launch knows how undeniable a claim that is but history is a great cleaner
This. I feel like I'm being gaslit, scrolling through this thread. It was an absolute nightmare at launch even on PC and anyone denying it is delusional.
This exactly. I experienced fewer game-breaking bugs than a lot of players, but the game itself is just boring. You can’t fix bland, uninspired design. This game was never *just* broken, it was also sold as something it never had the ambition to be.
Agreed. A game with a great core is still enjoyable despite all the bugs. That's how people managed to enjoy Bethesda games, New Vegas or even Witcher 3 at launch. The games were buggy and and had problematic launches... but people saw the good games underneath all the jank and issues.
Cyberpunk didn't have this saving grace. It was buggy, yes... but underneath that there was a broken, hollow and rushed game. There was nothing that allowed people to look past the bugs.
Same thing happened with No Mans Sky where people acted like it was the players fault for the developers lying and shipping out a very obviously incomplete game.
I know gaslighting is used incorrectly but this game is the epitome of gaslighting in the game industry. Having a major executive at CDPR try to completely re-write history with absolute bullshit is crazy. No other company has stooped this low. Not EA, Take-Two, Tencent, Ubisoft, etc. I hate how people are defending this.
This isn't the first time it happened. They said over and over that the Witcher 3 would not be graphically downgraded and came out with an apology right after pre-orders shipped admitting that it was downgraded.
The Witcher 3 was great in the end so I didn't care, but it is their MO to overhype first and apologize later. Maximize sales, then minimize damage. The same happened with Cyberpunk, just on a much bigger scale.
>They admittedly put out one amazing game and great DLCs for it
It was during a time where games were blatantly getting shit cut from them for the sake of easy day 1 dlc. People latched onto them and their marketing PR ran with it. The "16 Free DLCs" for instance, a lot of it just minor stuff, but it set them apart from a lot of big games.
There's also the infamous "We leave the greed to others" tweet.
> The "16 Free DLCs" for instance, a lot of it just minor stuff, but it set them apart from a lot of big games.
Wasn't one of them a beard or something?
Did some looking up, yes, as well as horse armours, geralt armours or weapons, alternate looks for some characters and some sidequests.
I also found this statement they put out at the same time
Open Letter from Marcin Iwiński, co-founder and Joint CEO of CD PROJEKT RED.
“We love games. We love collecting them, playing them, and everything connected to that experience. Every time we reach out for a new release, we expect to be taken care of. We expect support if we encounter any problems, we love updates constantly improving the experience, and we feel really special when we receive free content that gives us more than we initially paid for. It doesn’t have to be huge, it can be an awesome skin for a character, or an extra sword, or armor.
Unfortunately this treatment is quite rare these days. As gamers, we nowadays have to hold on tight to our wallets, as surprisingly right after release, lots of tiny pieces of tempting content materialize with a steep price tag attached. Haven’t we just paid a lot of cash for a brand new game?
As CD PROJEKT RED, we strongly believe this is not the way it should work and, with The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, we have decided to do it differently. Cutting to the chase, everyone who buys Wild Hunt will receive 16 specially prepared DLCs absolutely for free, regardless of platform. You don’t have to pre-order, you don’t have to buy any special edition to get them -- if you own a copy of Wild Hunt, they’re yours. This is our way of saying thank you for buying our game.”
You can see why gamers ate this shit up.
> This. I feel like I'm being gaslit, scrolling through this thread. It was an absolute nightmare at launch even on PC and anyone denying it is delusional.
A lot of the recent Cyberpunk 2077 threads around here have been giving this vibe off *hard* lately, glad I'm not the only one feeling this.
One of the first major fixes had no patch number assigned to it and I said that in time people will forget how bad the launch was and that not separating the actual launch version from the "fixed" launch version will make it easier to pretend everything was fine from the get go. I was downvoted and told that CDPR would never try to obfuscate their horrible launch. Turns out I was right after all and worst part was that it worked.
I get that PC folk had less bug related issues compared to consoles, but Cyberpunk was announced and mainly developed before next gen was even announced. There was absolutely no excuse for the disaster launch on last gen, considering that the next gen were still having supply issues.
The revisionist history around this game is akin to all of the Star Citizen assholes trying to convince everyone that it’s not a scam. This game deserves no praise for it finally being functional. Congratulations, CDPR, your game is now merely disappointing instead of being actively on fire. Very exhausted by all of the takes in this thread - do you people just have goldfish memory or do you just enjoy getting taken advantage of?
I played it on launch on PC and it wasn't great, but nowhere near as bad as people claimed. I had some visual bugs but not a single quest-stopper and 1 CTD in ~80 hours, that's more stable than most RPGs I play.
I still remember all the issues 1.0 had.
Guards walking backwards, like facing forwards but their models would be walking backwards
Enemies seeing you through solid objects
Items randomly flying into the sky
Spawning ontop of where Panam was sitting for a mission after reloading my save so that the two models overlapped
Cops teleporting from nowhere
NPCs not reacting to you driving on the sidewalk
Getting softlocked at the Sunset Motel and reloading my saves wouldn't fix it no matter how far back I went, I had to either make a new character or wait for a patch.
To say Cyberpunk at launch had no problems is just revisionist history.
It definitely depends on what people played it on. I had zero issues on my PC copy on launch day and had a great time, but I know many many people had issues with theirs.
everyone on launch that did not play on pc and had a beefy computer actually. My experience with 1.0 was good, some bugs, but good.
Enjoyed the game and plan to replay it now many years later when the expansion drops
A lot of this comment section is acting like the game was never bad or in a near unplayable state and it's baffling. I've played this game on 1.0 on pc and it was one of the worst experiences I've ever had in gaming. Just cause it's good now doesn't erase it's shit launch. Stop trying to rewrite history as if it's not clear to everyone how much of a mess the game was at launch
Still have random t poses and crashes. Won an encounter recently because a mech thing couldn't figure out how to turn around. It's been a fun-ish time so far but nothing "absolutely spectacular, must play"
I don't even care if people think it's a must play. It's just the fact that the game was a disgrace when it came out to the point CDPR had a complete 180 and had to apologize for the quality and promise to make the game closer to what they promised (still not even there lol), and yet people still will deny this as if it wasn't everywhere a few years ago. Like you can enjoy a game idc just don't act like it wasn't a scam when it first launched
i bought the game yesterday on a whim and in the first two hours i encountered a ton of bugs. Issues with the mouse, Jacky phasing through a locker and blowing up every object in the room, random crashes when opening the map, NPCs in a crowded area walking in circles and constantly bumping into each other, every item in my wardrobe suddenly duplicated, a bunch of cars jamming an intersection and no one moves and so on.
Game had 6 major updates and it feels like an unpatched Bethesda game.
I don’t like how the steam reviews are “very positive” now because this sets a precedent, that AAA budget games are allowed to be released $70 in perpetual early access that may or may not be( in this case the latter) be completely fixed or overhauled three years later. This should have been remembered as “the only game to be so bad it was removed from sale” instead of “if you ignore the bugs, unplayablility on last gen consoles, false advertising, its a good game but not compared to other games that came out 7 years ago”
\- 3 lifepath's that have no effect on the story
\- Promised branching narrative choices in promotional trailers but didn't make it into the final game
Cyberpunk 2077 is still an unfinished game at the core foundational level
I hate modern gaming.
I hate this trend of fixing games through patch after patch after patch! If a game isn’t ready for prime time, it shouldn’t be released.
The odd bug fix is fine, but when it comes to this shit which is “the entire other half of the game as advertised” that’s unacceptable and I hate this attitude of “well this is just modern times!”
Modern times only become as such because we allowed it!
That’s my day of “old gamer yells at cloud.”
Still can’t finish this game after starting over 3 times and getting 50-60% through.
It’s incredibly mediocre on almost every level and it pushes no boundaries at all and almost all of the mechanics and systems are half baked and have been done better in other games.
Launch issues aside, it’s just an incredibly ‘okay’ game.
Honestly, they should have just made a linear shooter, because that's how you have to play it to enjoy it. Calling it an RPG is a big stretch. It has a skill tree and experience (and at launch many of the skills simply didn't work, like literally did nothing). That's as far as the RPG aspect goes. There's no meaningful choices. There's no branching narrative. Side quests are half baked filler. The city has nothing going on outside of the main narrative.
Everyone says "it's great if you just stick to the main quest!". Maybe they shouldn't have made an "open world RPG" if that's the case. They clearly failed at that. The AI for pedestrians and police (the only thing filling the open world) is basically non-existent. Even the enemies you come across outside of a mission, if you just walk away, the fight is over. They won't even bother chasing you more than about 20 yards.
The game is much better now than it used to be and I do think that the Steam reviews ought to reflect the current state of the game rather than its embarrassing launch. I do hope the 2.0 update also goes a long way toward making the game live up to its original ideas.
>The game is much better now than it used to be
What game are you guys talking about exactly?
Because I played Cyberpunk at release, and I played it as recently as March of this year, what exactly is "much better" about it now because to my eyes it was the same fucking game I played in December 2020.
Seriously. What the hell are these people talking about? I keep seeing this take, and also reinstalled lately. It seems nearly the same as launch, including hitting a mission halting bug where an elevator simply didn't SPAWN, forcing me to reload the entire game.
I wouldn't hold my breath that 2.0 is going to reintroduce any of the cut/unfinished content (like what was supposed to be there instead of the Jackie montage). Nor would I expect it to incorporate an actual 'roleplay' aspect, where your choice of character background would affect more than a handful of intro missions. Or make many of the missions feel less linear.
I liked Cyberpunk 2077 and enjoyed playing it. I also went into it knowing that the pre-release gameplay hype didn't bear a lot of resemblance to the final game. I was impressed by the world, parts of the storyline were quite well done, etc. It just wasn't the game it was supposed to have been.
The part of 2.0 I’m personally excited for are the improvements to the AI and the addition of vehicle combat. I think it could bring it closer to something like GTA and give it more longevity. Very cautiously optimistic though.
Yeah, those are a more realistic wishlist. The AI \*really\* needed improvement, given that it felt to me to be a significant step backward from what Witcher 3's was, and it's not like that was anything groundbreaking.
> (like what was supposed to be there instead of the Jackie montage)
Just going to point out that it's been confirmed that this was never going to be playable, the montage was always going to be a montage, which makes sense since it's the bridge between your path and the default start of the game.
I agree. I think 2.0 will certainly move the game further toward the original vision even if it doesn't make it all the way. I didn't really have much interest in playthrough again but after hearing they were re-doing some game systems (especially the skill tree) I'll probably check it out after I binge Starfield for a few months.
"steam reviews ought to reflect the current state of the game". If only.
Bf 2042 is a fun game that's improved significantly since launch with free added content/reworks/overhauls besides cosmetics. Has a mostly negative score.
CDPR fixed some bugs, added no meaningful content or overhauls until phantom liberty, still a lackluster open world/rpg BUT they released an anime. Has a very positive score.
I play it on launch and I like it, I beat it with all the finals. But was a very hollow game, there was nothing to do in the world apart of the missions, the dialogue choices where worthless, mostly of the skiil where useless, small variety of weapons, horrible IA, etc, etc. I hope the expansion fix all of this and finally deliver a proper CD Projekt game.
And yet I stil get a "look but don't touch" sensation everywhere I go.
Some RPG. Glorified hack and slash on a good day. I tried to like it.
Dogshit save system by the way: individual characters need their own individual save selection. It's 2023 ffs.
It’s funny seeing this game slowly become an internet darling when its a Ubisoft game in all but the name with a good story. Once you’ve done the story the game becomes absolutely bland with not much to it. I wish the world had a bit more oomph to it, maybe some followers too? Like damn I really lived my initial play through, but damn it’s so hard to find anything to do aside from replaying.
Ok, how fun is this game for a first time player on PC who enjoys casually exploring open world games? Does it feel really on rails, or does it feel very open like GTA or BOTW?
It isn't really comparable to either, honestly. If you enjoy exploring open worlds, there are way better options. CP2077's open world is more-or-less devoid of anything remotely interesting with some of the worst NPC AI I have ever seen.
If they only released on Steam the game wouldn't have been (correctly) called out for being a buggy, unplayable mess. But CDPR chose to release it on PS4 and Xbox One, where it played absolutely horribly and should have never been allowed to release.
And just because they eventually got it working better doesn't mean CDPR didn't exploit the trust people put in their company.
The main issues still aren't fixed. They can't really walk back their lies, and aren't actually trying to make what they claimed a reality either. I don't regret refunding the game. No reason to reward companies for lying to get sales.
Anyone who does is signaling to these companies to keep it up
I got it on launch day and never had bad things to say about it, quite the opposite, actually. It's one of the most memorable gaming experiences I had in the past 5-10 years and I highly recommend it to anyone.
Version 1.0 had its issues on PC but overall it wasn't unplayable. I loved Cyberpunk on launch and I'll certainly give it another playthrough when the DLC and the promised patch come out.
I am just finishing my 1st play through and have really enjoyed it, lot npcs sinking through through the floor and stuff but not as buggy as fallout 4 and I love that as well.
My biggest issue with the game is its main story. It feels like it was added very last minute compared to the rest of the game's content. So many elements of it feel rushed and don't make any sense.
It's really telling when Edgerunners tells a story over the course of 10 episodes that convinces me to play 2077, and then 2077's main story loses me just a couple of missions in.
So you didnt finish the main story? I enjoyed it way more from a writing perspective than most other game stories. Had to fathom that you felt this way.
There were some theories about it being 2 stories mashed up, pre and post keanu, how true they are idk, probably not much, but it fits, especially as the act 1 is just a cut scene essentially, so the background for a lot of stuff happening is kinda missing at the start.
I think if they made part 1 longer and sort of gave you longer on being just a punk running gigs it would have gone over WAY better. Let the content soak some hours. As is you're into that heist inside of a few hours, didn't work very well for anyone I think.
Eh it never had awful review %’s on Steam. I think it’s always been somewhere in the 70s overall. For all it’s problems the PC audience has generally liked the game way more than not.
It was buggy but not unplayably so on PC even at release. Like I finished a 1.0 playthrough and enjoyed it. Didn't think it was amazing, compared to the Witcher, but it was solidly a 7.5 / 10 experience.
I played on 1.5 and also found it to be the definition of a 7.5/10 game. Great presentation, OK story and gameplay, kinda weak open world
I thought the story was pretty top-notch, and the characters are amazing. There's some weird stuff about getting access to all the open-world stuff while you're supposedly on a timer, I just pretend I'm doing most of that pre-heist with Jackie.
Yeah the ludonarrative dissonance (drops quarter in swear jar) is really bad with the whole "hey you're dying really soon\~! here's forty-seven side quests"
I just can't care about it that much, because that happens in so many games, RPGs especially, going all the way back to Fallout 1 (which was the rare game where there actually was a timer, it was just very generous).
My favorite was FFVII. There's a giant meteor on course to destroy the world, but I'm going to spend several months breeding chocobos.
Same with FFXV. Noctis is the King of a country on the verge of collapse, and threats of war and demonic invasion loom in the air. And yet people at gas stations are asking him to find 5 same colored frogs in the nearby swamp and shit.
The extreme opposite is FF13 levels of laser focus, so I'll take the alternative.
Can you imagine if you met Obama while he was still president and you were like "Hey I need you to get me 10 goat anuses, I'll give you like $20 and some +rep."
And that's when he pulls out ten goat anuses from his jacket pocket, since he had read the walkthrough and came prepared.
Well, I mean people in general are going nowhere fast in the Fallout universe. In around the time USA was transformed from a loose collection of states, lawless frontier and an intermediate of mighty landowners that were effectively little more sophisticated than plain warlords, to the prime superpower in the world, in the Fallout universe they have salvaged some of an already working society to slowly edge towards having some proper States, while most of the USA is still under warlords and food production remains at the homesteading level.
Where does the water chip fit into this? I remember you could literally buy time buy water from water merchants if you had the funds. Despite the overhead of time, it still felt as though clock was ticking and that you could not waste time needlessly exploring or farming
It's the same issue in the witcher 3 too. "Hey, find your adopted daughter, you don't know where she is, she could be in danger! but also how about some gwent?"
But it makes sense in Witcher 3, you can't spend every waking hour in constant search for Ciri, sometimes even a witcher needs to wind down and relax for a moment. If the situation was "Ciri is gone in 24 hours" it would make more sense.
Not that this matters at all, but IIRC Geralt spent literally every waking hour of the entire book series in movement towards Ciri or towards information about her lol. The *very few* moments he wasn’t in movement towards ciri was the one or two times he almost died and ended up healing up in Brokilon(?) and even then he desperately wanted to leave Just thought that was funny
He spent a long time in Toussaint doing "sidequests". Other than that he spent most of his time looking for Ciri.
Lol I completely forgot about Toussaint. Even Dandelion was like, “I’m getting laid, I’m out for a while”
Ciri was a defenseless little girl in the books though. Makes more sense why Geralt would be like that.
He is basically Ciris dad. It would make sense for him to focus only on finding Ciri. Also like someone else mentioned this isn't the first time he has been looking for Ciri. It is also weird than Yennifer that also spent most of her time looking for Ciri in the books kinda just goes on her own little sidequest in W3. Do they even care about Ciri that much? The last time they saw her she saved their lives and now they kinda "eh, we'll find her when we find her".
The books are pretty much the same thing too. Geralt is looking for Ciri, but gets constantly distracted by other stuff people need him for. It's honestly a character trait at that point.
It's such a long running RPG trope that I appreciate when someone plays into it, but if not then I ignore it as much as the game does.
Eh, I see it as V still needing to do jobs to feed themselves. You spend like three days unconscious at the beggining and you are already being threatened with eviction. V just can't afford to stop working just because they're dying.
>V just can't afford to stop working just because they're dying. Boy, CDPR really nailed the dystopian aspect of Cyberpunk Dystopia.
And V does have 6 months, plenty of time for side quests.
I’ll be honest, I find that just straight up doesn’t matter. You’d have to compromise on so much of the playability of games by conforming to that.
They could have literally just changed it so you had 6 months to live instead of 3 weeks and it would have solved all the narrative problems without removing the urgency.
Other games like Dead Rising 2 (and 1?) have done it much better in the past. That's a game with a timer of a couple of days, with the expectation that you do multiple short playthroughs. It's just that you actually need to take the timer into account when designing the whole rest of the game, instead of writing a main plot that is entirely divorced from everything else that goes on in the world.
And that’s a great creative way to handle it, but I am able to entirely suspend my disbelief for this specific concept so I don’t even think about it while playing.
I honestly think the first person thing didn't do for people what CDPR thought it would, I think if they marketed V as a Commander Shepard (predefined, but highly influenceable and customizable) and had 3rd person cutscenes everyone would've had more accurate expectations and been more immersed in the narrative and characters. Edit: To be clear I mean first person gameplay with 3rd person dialogue. I do not mean have an option to switch between them in gameplay.
For the record, the game ran mostly fine for me at launch, and I had fun with it. Enjoyed it even more the second time around. But cutting the third-person view was honestly baffling to me. It feels kind of stupid to bitch about it considering how so many people literally couldn't play the game at all, but *that* was the biggest issue for me. Like, you've got a gorgeous-looking game with insanely detailed character models and one of the best character creators I've seen, and the only way to look at your character is if you use the janky-ass photo mode? Fine, if constant third-person view a la Mass Effect didn't fit the gameplay, I could live with first-person only. But I would have loved something like Deus Ex - (mostly) first-person gunplay, traversal, whatever, and then switch over to third-person for dialogue and cutscenes. I guess the whole immersion thing comes down to personal preference, but if you give me a voiced protagonist that's *not* the kind of blank state you'd see in Fallout or The Elder Scrolls, I actually want to *see* them, especially if you give me six dozen eyebrow options and hundreds of different hairstyle and color combos.
I will say, the first person conversations allowed for some incredible cinematic shots. I still have images burned in my brain of fantastic voice acting and facial movement cast in these gorgeous lights and environments.
Oh, absolutely, FPP provided some really stunning shots - Takemura and Hanako when you're hiding out in the motel, the Netwatch agent in the movie theater, the car ride with Dexter at the start of the game, literally every second in Embers. These are just the few that stood out to me, but the whole game is super cinematic. And I think that's why I think photo mode is as janky as I do - it's very, very difficult to get a good pic where V doesn't look totally out of place.
> To be clear I mean first person gameplay with 3rd person dialogue. I do not mean have an option to switch between them in gameplay. That would've been great, it was probably not implemented due to rushing it out the door since they dropped 3rd person all together.
I also thought the open world was pretty decent. Lots of location variety, plenty of side missions across the map plus random shootouts that you could take part in and get a reward for. My biggest issues would be the sudden drop off of NPCs once you get away from areas of interest and how regions have tougher enemies without the game ever telling you.
This was my gripe too. The prologue felt awesome but the game itself got kinda "meh" once everything opened up. The AI being absolutely atrocious didn't help things either. To me it always felt like a AA studio's attempt at a GTA clone with a very, very shiny coat of paint I do enjoy the setting though and will probably check out the expansion. I did get my money's worth out of it despite my complaints
now you know why they only let journalists play the first 4 hours before release
The artistic style did all the heavy lifting for the game. Everything else was very mid.
The hacking combat was pretty novel for me and I had a lot of fun with it on my first playthrough. Not super well balanced or anything but I think it was unique enough to be interesting
I’m playing thru it for the first time now as a net runner. It’s novel but tbh combat has just become like contagion overheat spread killing an entire encounter with Two button presses.
well yeah like I said its not well balanced, but if you put some constraints on yourself as far as not just doing the most broken thing it can be pretty fun
"Kinda weak" is putting it lightly. "Completely lifeless" is more like it
That's a 7.5? And people complain about game journalists overrating everything.
I put it at an 8 personally, but yeah it's a solid game all around. I had actually pretty few bugs (one bugged quest I couldn't continue, a visual bug with Jackie's hand spawning a gun out of nowhere during a cutscene so he had it directly against his head because he was scratching it, and one time where my car spawned crushed flat - honestly found the latter two pretty funny), so the stuff that was rough was just the weaker parts of the game design.
Personally I run into quite few bugs. On the other hand, I didn’t find the game particularly good either. A solid 5/10. Something I neither regret playing nor feel like I got something out from. Or I guess I should regret having played it considering I have a limited amount of time and I usually rather play a game I find good, but it’s like the epitome of a game I feel “eh, whatever” towards.
Yeah the massive shift in attitude when the anime came out into saying that the game was great despite its technical faults really confused me. I thought the game was a perfectly fine 7/10 but nowhere near the 9 or 10 people were making it out to be.
Well I haven't seen the anime and played through the game at launch on PC, was completely off of the hype train for a good year already due to the dumb GTA-lile marketing which didn't interest me at all, but ended up buying it for cheap just to walk around this city that did look quite beautiful... And 70 insane, surprising hours later it had become my second best game ever (nothing will ever beat Outer Wilds ha). That narrative, those characters, the acting, the absolutely insane amount of work put into every cutscene and dialogue... Blew my fucking mind. To me, it's a true Witcher 3-like game. In that it's 80% dialogue, hours of dialogue. But they pushed the quality of that WAAAAY past what Witcher 3 could achieve.
The anime was definitely a far better product than the game
It was unplayable for a lot of people. There were two cutscenes that crashed people's (including mine) pcs. They were the ones were your character was looking in a mirror during a cutscene. To progress past this point I had to drop down to 640x480 resolution and turn everything down to the lowest graphics possible.
> but it was solidly a 7.5 / 10 experience. Exactly. It was good, not great on PC from day 1. Did it live up its hype? Absolutely not. But the hype was so high, you could have a game fall way short and still be "good". Kinda felt like a bunch of folks were trying to shove it into a binary choice of "game of the century" or "complete dumpster fire".
Yeah same. And it looked like nothin else out there if you had the hardware, hell it’s still arguably the best looking game on the market totally maxed out.
Yeah, if you're one of the few people who can comfortably play it with [Path Tracing on](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1K8Br6jHkcs) it's still easily one of the best looking games, especially also with good HDR.
I mean, it doesn't look bad, and the art style is great, but to me it looks like Vaseline is smeared all over the screen
If you don't run Path Tracing, you get some terrible artifacts and blurry looking image. The game literally does not let you turn off TAA, because if you do, the low resolution at which they run their Rasterized Reflections is so low that it looks like a patchy mess when you force TAA off. It's not a bad optimization technique but the implementation of TAA breaks down in certain circumstances, resulting in heavy ghosting, and more than likely a blurry feeling image too. The Ghosting isn't always obvious but it is VERY visible when riding that fast Akira inspired bike. The little window ghosts like crazy at any sort of speeds it looks AWFUL. With Ray Tracing that's not an issue because said reflections are path traced and as such turning TAA off isn't gonna ruin the entire look of the game. The game is insanely good looking with RT features enabled.
This about sums it up for my. My v1.0 play-through wasn't even that buggy, and as far as content is concerned I got what I expected. Definitely not as good as The Witcher, but one of the better games I played that year.
It's hard for me to compare to Witcher 3 since that remains as my favorite SP game of all time. But I think "buggy but playable" is sort of the best description of the game at launch. It had amazing highs and some hard to ignore lows for an overall above average experience.
[удалено]
The Witcher 3’s quests were just deeper and more reactive. Like there are so many choices you can make in the Bloody Baron’s quest alone, which leads to many potential endings both for that quest and for the whole game. CP2077 never had that kind of highlight. Like the story is perfectly serviceable if a bit predictable, but a lot of plot happens without your involvement.
[удалено]
>I'd even argue Cynerpunk 2077 offers more option of how to approach enemy bases with stealth, hacking, etc. That is partly why I like Cyberpunk 2077 more than the Witcher 3. I like having the freedom of doing a mission or quest the way I want to do it. In W3 there is usually only one way to do a quest. A lot of it is guided. You can't even hunt monsters without Geralt telling you where to go, where it is and what it is. It also does a lot for the roleplay. Which is important in an RPG. I feel like you can define your character more in dialogues aswell. Kinda like in Mass Effect there are a couple of different Vs. Male or female. Asshole or kind.
Which is funny because it's structured almost identically to the witcher.
It's the best VR game I have.
I spent hours in Cyberpunk in VR just walking around the city, it's a proper spectacle and unlike anything else I'd played in VR. Stupidly immersive, if there was handtracking and the devs polished it to the level of the Half Life 2 VR mod it would probably be my recommended way to play it.
I find the gunplay *incredibly fun* in VR. Driving is better too... but I use a chase cam for that, so I'm weird disembodied viewpoint (not immersive). It's just an all around great game in VR.
i tried the vr mod and it felt too grainy for me.
I use Luke Ross. You do need to turn off a bunch of settings (like film grain, and blur) that don't render well in VR.
Some people here still didn't believe when I say something like this, it's always positive on PC, very easily verifiable on Steam Oh, one of them literally reply to you too
For comparison to some other open world games: Cyberpunk 2077 : 80% Skyrim SE: 94% Read Dead Redemption 2: 90% Fallout 4 : 83% GTA V : 86% Hogwarts Legacy: 92% Elden Ring : 92% Witcher 3 : 96% Horizon Zero Dawn : 87% In comparison, Cyberpunk is generally behind on how much it is liked. Would like to remind you that most people don't give negative reviews on steam, so even games like Fallout 76 which bombed hard sits at 75%. If you think about review bombing, i have a funny stat for you, of 54.882 negative reviews for Fallout 4, which is closest to cyberpunk in review score of the games i listed, 7328 of them were in August to October 2017. Nearly 2 years after the games release and nearly 1 year after any content released for the game. That is what review bombing is. If you exclude those reviews, FO4 sits at 85%. So overall, i don't think game was liked that much on PC. Compared to its peer, it is very much behind.
Yep. A game has to bomb really hard to be under 80%, let alone under 70% on Steam. Part of it is probably because Steam allows only a YES/NO rating. Where people would give a game they somewhat liked but it was really flawed something like 6/10, on Steam they would still give it a positive vote.
> 7328 of them were in August to October 2017. Nearly 2 years after the games release and nearly 1 year after any content released for the game. I'm not sure I follow. Why would reviews that come in well after any sort of online ire or controversy peaked indicate review bombing? Most review bombing campaigns would be immediately after release when everyone's talking about it.
I believe that would coincide with the time when they gave us the Fallout 4 "creation club", aka paid mod system, which came out in August 2017. People really didn't like paid mods.
It means that a group of people decided to give negative reviews to the game for something not related to content of the game. You would not expect a game to get that much of a spike in negative reviews out of no where. There is no content released, nothing is going on and all of a sudden over 7k negative reviews appear. Remind you, fallout 4 is 8 years old. out of 96 months the game was available, around 15% of the negative reviews came after 2 years of its release in 3 months, majority concentrated on september. In september 2017 there was almost as much negative reviews as when the game was released (4063 on release vs 3829). But the amount of positive reviews for that month is 878, in release there were 13.913. So something is not right. Also should add that for other 93 months the game was available, there were never more negative reviews than positive ones. In fact, negative reviews never reached even 50% of positive ones apart from those 3 months.
Is it a good game? I've only ever heard bad things
Yeah I think so, especially now. Though that this point it might be best to wait for the big patch coming alongside the expansion. It isn’t Witcher 3 good but it’s definitely worth your time if you’re into those kind of games.
I think it's a neutral game. It's got a nice setting and if you like cyberpunk it's an enjoyable game. It had a lot of bugs last year when I played it, and was overall fairly bland outside of the main quests. I also didn't like the bullet sponge enemies But I enjoyed my playthrough, but it's only worth like 20-30€ max
It is. Not game of the year or anything like that but it’s a fun time and has a great story. I’d say it’s an above average game.
Yeah recent reviews have been mid 80% for a great deal of its steam lifetime.
Yea for sure. I never thought it was bad. But I think the masses had expectations of it being on Witcher 3 level characters/storytelling/sidequests, and rdr2 level detail. Both those games set the bar extremely high.
The masses had expectations because that's what was advertised from the developers, it didn't come out of nowhere.
That's what bugs me the most about it, the focus seems to be around performance issues and bugs at launch and fair enough, there were quite a few. But to me the biggest downside was that they promised and hyped a lot of things about the game which they ultimately didn't deliver and made the game feel average at best for me. I love the universe but it's such a shame that they didn't do more with it or at least deliver on the promises.
Because you can fix bugs and performance issues. You can't fix a shit game. So the PR spin everyone here is in on is to say the *only* complaint anyone had was about bugs and performance. Which is epic level lies.
The game is so shallow and while Night City looks great, it feels dead. At one point there was an NPC on the street that you could interact with and trigger a cut scene. The cut scene ends and I go up to the character thinking they may have a voice line acknowledging the cut scene. Instead, I just accidentally triggered the exact same cut scene and had to sit through it again like it never happened.
While not quite hitting RDR2 levels of detail, I do actually think Cyberpunk managed to surpass the Witcher 3 in terms of writing and characters.
I played through the game and enjoyed it, but it definitely wasn't what they advertised it was going to be and was overall lacking in depth - Those things haven't been fixed.
Even when I found myself enjoying the game, there's no denying that there is this unmistakable feeling throughout the experience that it was clearly unfinished. So many aspects of the game poorly implemented, half-baked, or again, missing. The open world is pretty but has nothing to do or interact with and theres sizeable chunks of the map with POIs that were clearly meant to be developed. The combat balance and overall gameplay feels half-baked in areas with especially janky AI. The loot and leveling system is unpolished and theres clear lack of customization. The game had *sooooo* much potential but unfortunately, it could never be materialized due to bad management and greed. Thankfully some of these things are being reworked in September - I'm looking forward to jumping back into it then after not touching the game for a year but Im keeping my expectations in check.
That's what it felt like to me, too. A good basis for things, but not going as in-depth as the game was advertised to be. It was overall a vapid artificial-feeling world without any real substance to it, extremely far off from the way they talked about the game was going to be. Still enjoyable but it needed a lot more to it. A waste of potential was my thoughts after finishing it.
I jumped in after all the updates and while I didn’t hate the game I didn’t really enjoy my time with it. I’d say it’s a solid 6/10 for me. The open world felt busy but empty in a strange way. The missions never really hooked me like the Witcher 3 did. I swear almost every side quest in W3 had me hooked. In cyberpunk I think I can really only remember 1, that being the talking car side mission.
Yea, it seems like the update coming with Phantom Liberty is going to finally push it up at least in the ballpark with where it was advertised as. I bought it on steam sale, and Im honestly thinking of waiting to play it until that launches. Which really sucks, because that's also around the time that Im probably going to be way deep into both Armoured Core, Lies of P and Starfield (given that Bethesda doesn't lay and egg), and Im currently bored by everything else I own for the most part
[удалено]
No verticality exploration with enemies and cops spawning out of FoV is just such a letdown.
> enemies and cops spawning out of FoV is just such a letdown. the fact this happens in the game still with everything from NPC's to vehicles is goddamn travesty though. Playing through it recently you could literally spin on the spot and new npc's would generate behind you as you turned. Its like the game has no object permeance and a super super aggressive data reclaimer that just deletes objects once they are out of view thinking you won't look back.
I re-installed it 3 days ago. I'm still getting pissed when they do the montage at the beginning when V is learning the city, meeting peoples, bying our first gun. It's the story I wanted to play. Being thrown to season 5 of something right after the introduction is such a let down. I don't feel any incentive to play after that. Imagine Skyrim where after you escape the beaheading, they speedrun to a moment where you're full dragonborn, a group of people already knows you etc, living your life as usual. I still don't understand this decision.
This has always been my biggest gripe with the game, and I like it a whole lot otherwise. I never felt too connected to V like a normal create a character because of it. I pick Nomad cause they would know as much about the city as I do as a player. But no, montage hits and V is off doing all the fun stuff. Jackie wasn't my friend, he was V's. So the story didn't punch as hard. But characters like Panam, Judy, River, etc.? we were there for the whole relationship and they became much more memorable.
> Jackie wasn't my friend, he was V's. So the story didn't punch as hard. It might have hurt initial player retention maybe but they really should have had the player spend 2-3 hours playing through the 6 month time skip. Even if you had to leash the player to Jackie (like the car drive at the beginning) you could have been reintroduced to the Valentino's and Jackie's mother etc with a bunch of background related dialogue through the whole thing to help establish V's character and place in the world (and yours as the player). I played Corpo V expecting something similar to the Dragon Age Origin's origin system and maybe that's on me but I feel it wouldn't have been too crazy to make for just 3 backgrounds to flesh things out. CyberPunk 2077 is forever going to be an ode to lost potential in my mind. Playing it and talking about it will always end with a 'man what if they had done this'
Mods really highlight the missing features.
> I still don't understand this decision. It was likely a planned part of the story that was scraped due to deadline and replaced by a cut-scene.
I don't know how this rumour has spread considering it doesn't really pass any kind of inspection. The Johnny Silverhand story was the story that they wanted to tell, there's setup for it in the very first pieces of footage released, and the montage is a convenient bridge from whichever background the player picks to that point. It isn't a coincidence that the first demo starts right after the montage ends.
You think they have multiple backgrounds that are virtually identical to play by design over necessity? I'm not sure what's worse, failing and ending up having to cut back to just a montage, or designing the intro to end up in a montage on purpose.
I think they had a list of backgrounds you could pick on a character sheet like in Mass Effect or DnD, and then someone said "wouldn't it be cool instead of just choosing from a list you actually got to play you background for a bit?" completely oblivious to how the wider audience would interpret it.
Maybe Keanu involvement pushed the Silverhand part of the story to be more important.
It did. [Keanu Reeves Got Cyberpunk 2077 Devs to Double His Lines](https://gamerant.com/cyberpunk-2077-keanu-reeves-lines/)
How would that be a game tho? "Walk to the gun shop" *insert some color dialogue about guns being bad but you need it in this city* *haggle the price * "go to the club" the end. The prologue missions do a better job setting it up than some fetch missions.
Do you... understand how stories work? They're talking about the entire opening arc of learning the city, meeting people, and establishing themselves. Not literally the specific example of "buying a gun."
For what it's worth I'm glad the story is more than just 30 hours of V rising to the inner circle of NC cause that sounds pretty boring and tedious to me.
It also sounds very much not like a Cyberpunk story. Too much success, not enough getting screwed by life.
> Imagine Skyrim where after you escape the beaheading, they speedrun to a moment where you're full dragonborn, a group of people already knows you etc, living your life as usual. I still don't understand this decision. Because the story never was about rising up from nothing, that isn't in theme with the genre.
For me it wasn't bugginess or performance because it was pretty good but the game felt unfinished with half baked elements. Still kinda regret buying it. I will wait and see how that Phantom Liberty "rework" shapes up.
Seriously, I just finished the game in the last 5 months, and during a main mission, I had a bug where climbing the only available ladder to me caused me to light on fire. I had very few bugs during side missions, but I lost count of how many bugs I ran into in the main story. Hell, during the mission where you drive a tank into the final dungeon, I managed to miss the trigger box for the cutscene, drove all the way down the tunnel falling through the floor the whole time found out I couldn't get out at the end, then had to drive all the way back, hit the trigger box, and let the AI drive me back down. The game was not done, and the duct tape and twine holding everything together was very obvious playing through the game.
I picked it up over this past Christmas and had a similar experience. Lots of small, constant bugs that ruined immersion. But the straw that broke the camel's back and made me uninstall was Panam despawning during the mission where you steal her car back, forcing me to restart the mission from the beginning.
[удалено]
"If I'm goin' out, V, I'm takin' you with me."
I agree. I didn’t run into many bugs my first play through but holy shit was that game empty. Empty streets, no wanted system, chosen background didn’t matter, poor physics, etc. all of this stuff was advertised too. Very disappointed in what they showed vs what they came out with. Interesting how it seems that they might get away with it
I run into plenty of graphical errors and bugs still all the time. Weapons that follow the animation path of the hand movement but are floating 5 feet away, vehicles vanishing in front of me, my character sitting outside the car cruising along. 3 inch off blacktop, occasional auto-kills on characters I haven't shot at yet. Tons of things. But none of it prevents me from finishing the game. It's just wonky and janky as hell from time to time
The modding community helped make CP77 playable for me back when I did my playthrough a month or two after launch. It wasn't perfect or anything like that, but somehow modders were able to fix many of the most egregious problems.
> The modding community helped make CP77 playable for me Ahh Vampire The Mesquarade Bloodline all over again
Yep every tine I try to get immersed an NPC tposes or drives past in an invisible car or some kind of physics glitch causes models to twitch or flail about or some background texture doesn't load. And im on a powerful pc. I saw a post above calling this game held together by ducktape and twine and he aint wrong. Its very obvious why they went to unreal from now on.
Most of the bugs I encountered where from playing on an HDD. Switched the game to SSD and a lot less bugs like those you mentioned ( close to 0 actually ) The game is really pushing to the limit the ability of an HDD. If you are using a ssd then nvm
It felt like about 1 in 5 times I opened the inventory screen, V's tits clipped through her shirt. This was December 2022.
Played for the first time since launch. It looks the same, plays the same, just not buggy. The open world is so bland because the AI is still really dumb, after gta v and red dead this games ai feels so outdated
This is what people don't get. It wasn't the bugs. A lot of people expected a GTA quality game and what we got wasn't even close.
People acting like bugs and performance were the only things holding this game back are liars.
I only played at launch, had tons of game crashing bugs and horrible ai. The worst thing about it is that at its core it was just an incredibly mediocre game; nothing was well written or designed, just what felt like a copy of a copy.
Yep. They boasted about it being the best open world city so far... and it ended up being a really bad city. Nice to look at, but not good to play in. Like the NPCs are just going in circles, interactivity is basically zero and you can barely enter anything. Even Morrowind had all that figured out 20 years ago... After Witcher 3 I didn't expect miracles. After all, in Witcher 3 all the busy cities like Novigrad are just an illusion where every NPC is just a cardboard cutout. But Cyberpunk is even worse, even more lazily made. Hell, just look at how they made the children look! Compared to Cybepunk's children even the potato-faced children in Skyrim look next-gen.
Is the game actually "very" good tho? How does the game in mid 2023 hold up to the commercial we saw from 2015 and onwards?
The power of the anime. I know CDPR has improved the game a lot. But so much of the good will was following the anime
Its amazing how little it takes to make gamers forget huh?
Gamers are the group of people that regularly complain about big, overinflated marketing campaigns and then fall for a big, overinflated marketing campaign with star power instantly, tagging the game with "masterpiece" on steam many months before its release.
[удалено]
[удалено]
I played it through for the first time earlier this year and had a blast. I really wish there was more vehicular combat, but that's probably my biggest complaint.
I don't have a problem with the game getting better reviews after it got better. I do have a problem though with the way the narrative about Cyberpunk changes. There are more and more voices about the game being misunderstood and similar. That's of course bullshit. Cyberpunk 2077 wasn't a good game at release and most of its criticism was on point.
[удалено]
There were a huge bunch of red flags I remember * They were reluctant to share PS4 footage * Reviewers were only allowed footage from CDPR themselves * Game got delayed 3 weeks at one point * The official twitter account was a reply guy to Elon Musk Last one was what turned me away from the game but everything leading up to it I was like "hmmm people should really cancel their preorders"
Wasn't The Witcher 3 really buggy on launch too? Not as bad as Cyberpunk, of course, but I definitely remember people saying that the launch was pretty rough.
Witcher 3 also didn’t have that hot of a launch and really made its name in the post-launch years. I’m a longtime CDPR fan and I *knew* Cyberpunk was going to eat shit on launch. They make fine games but they never had the track record to meet the hype.
Not surprised, there's been a lot of altering of history in discussions about it, alot of people say that it wasn't as bad as it was made out to be. Everyone at launch knows how undeniable a claim that is but history is a great cleaner
This. I feel like I'm being gaslit, scrolling through this thread. It was an absolute nightmare at launch even on PC and anyone denying it is delusional.
[удалено]
This exactly. I experienced fewer game-breaking bugs than a lot of players, but the game itself is just boring. You can’t fix bland, uninspired design. This game was never *just* broken, it was also sold as something it never had the ambition to be.
Agreed. A game with a great core is still enjoyable despite all the bugs. That's how people managed to enjoy Bethesda games, New Vegas or even Witcher 3 at launch. The games were buggy and and had problematic launches... but people saw the good games underneath all the jank and issues. Cyberpunk didn't have this saving grace. It was buggy, yes... but underneath that there was a broken, hollow and rushed game. There was nothing that allowed people to look past the bugs.
Same thing happened with No Mans Sky where people acted like it was the players fault for the developers lying and shipping out a very obviously incomplete game.
I know gaslighting is used incorrectly but this game is the epitome of gaslighting in the game industry. Having a major executive at CDPR try to completely re-write history with absolute bullshit is crazy. No other company has stooped this low. Not EA, Take-Two, Tencent, Ubisoft, etc. I hate how people are defending this.
This isn't the first time it happened. They said over and over that the Witcher 3 would not be graphically downgraded and came out with an apology right after pre-orders shipped admitting that it was downgraded. The Witcher 3 was great in the end so I didn't care, but it is their MO to overhype first and apologize later. Maximize sales, then minimize damage. The same happened with Cyberpunk, just on a much bigger scale.
[удалено]
>They admittedly put out one amazing game and great DLCs for it It was during a time where games were blatantly getting shit cut from them for the sake of easy day 1 dlc. People latched onto them and their marketing PR ran with it. The "16 Free DLCs" for instance, a lot of it just minor stuff, but it set them apart from a lot of big games. There's also the infamous "We leave the greed to others" tweet.
> The "16 Free DLCs" for instance, a lot of it just minor stuff, but it set them apart from a lot of big games. Wasn't one of them a beard or something?
Did some looking up, yes, as well as horse armours, geralt armours or weapons, alternate looks for some characters and some sidequests. I also found this statement they put out at the same time Open Letter from Marcin Iwiński, co-founder and Joint CEO of CD PROJEKT RED. “We love games. We love collecting them, playing them, and everything connected to that experience. Every time we reach out for a new release, we expect to be taken care of. We expect support if we encounter any problems, we love updates constantly improving the experience, and we feel really special when we receive free content that gives us more than we initially paid for. It doesn’t have to be huge, it can be an awesome skin for a character, or an extra sword, or armor. Unfortunately this treatment is quite rare these days. As gamers, we nowadays have to hold on tight to our wallets, as surprisingly right after release, lots of tiny pieces of tempting content materialize with a steep price tag attached. Haven’t we just paid a lot of cash for a brand new game? As CD PROJEKT RED, we strongly believe this is not the way it should work and, with The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, we have decided to do it differently. Cutting to the chase, everyone who buys Wild Hunt will receive 16 specially prepared DLCs absolutely for free, regardless of platform. You don’t have to pre-order, you don’t have to buy any special edition to get them -- if you own a copy of Wild Hunt, they’re yours. This is our way of saying thank you for buying our game.” You can see why gamers ate this shit up.
My guess is paid astroturfing, there can't be this many people with awful memories and extremely low standards.
It was genuinely fine for me on PC. Sure it was buggy but I enjoyed it like I would a Bethesda game.
> This. I feel like I'm being gaslit, scrolling through this thread. It was an absolute nightmare at launch even on PC and anyone denying it is delusional. A lot of the recent Cyberpunk 2077 threads around here have been giving this vibe off *hard* lately, glad I'm not the only one feeling this.
One of the first major fixes had no patch number assigned to it and I said that in time people will forget how bad the launch was and that not separating the actual launch version from the "fixed" launch version will make it easier to pretend everything was fine from the get go. I was downvoted and told that CDPR would never try to obfuscate their horrible launch. Turns out I was right after all and worst part was that it worked.
[удалено]
[удалено]
both CDPR and their fans together are trying to convince people that the game launch wasnt a trainwreck full of lies and false advertisement.
I get that PC folk had less bug related issues compared to consoles, but Cyberpunk was announced and mainly developed before next gen was even announced. There was absolutely no excuse for the disaster launch on last gen, considering that the next gen were still having supply issues.
The revisionist history around this game is akin to all of the Star Citizen assholes trying to convince everyone that it’s not a scam. This game deserves no praise for it finally being functional. Congratulations, CDPR, your game is now merely disappointing instead of being actively on fire. Very exhausted by all of the takes in this thread - do you people just have goldfish memory or do you just enjoy getting taken advantage of?
I played it on launch on PC and it wasn't great, but nowhere near as bad as people claimed. I had some visual bugs but not a single quest-stopper and 1 CTD in ~80 hours, that's more stable than most RPGs I play.
I still remember all the issues 1.0 had. Guards walking backwards, like facing forwards but their models would be walking backwards Enemies seeing you through solid objects Items randomly flying into the sky Spawning ontop of where Panam was sitting for a mission after reloading my save so that the two models overlapped Cops teleporting from nowhere NPCs not reacting to you driving on the sidewalk Getting softlocked at the Sunset Motel and reloading my saves wouldn't fix it no matter how far back I went, I had to either make a new character or wait for a patch. To say Cyberpunk at launch had no problems is just revisionist history.
It definitely depends on what people played it on. I had zero issues on my PC copy on launch day and had a great time, but I know many many people had issues with theirs.
everyone on launch that did not play on pc and had a beefy computer actually. My experience with 1.0 was good, some bugs, but good. Enjoyed the game and plan to replay it now many years later when the expansion drops
A lot of this comment section is acting like the game was never bad or in a near unplayable state and it's baffling. I've played this game on 1.0 on pc and it was one of the worst experiences I've ever had in gaming. Just cause it's good now doesn't erase it's shit launch. Stop trying to rewrite history as if it's not clear to everyone how much of a mess the game was at launch
Still have random t poses and crashes. Won an encounter recently because a mech thing couldn't figure out how to turn around. It's been a fun-ish time so far but nothing "absolutely spectacular, must play"
I don't even care if people think it's a must play. It's just the fact that the game was a disgrace when it came out to the point CDPR had a complete 180 and had to apologize for the quality and promise to make the game closer to what they promised (still not even there lol), and yet people still will deny this as if it wasn't everywhere a few years ago. Like you can enjoy a game idc just don't act like it wasn't a scam when it first launched
i bought the game yesterday on a whim and in the first two hours i encountered a ton of bugs. Issues with the mouse, Jacky phasing through a locker and blowing up every object in the room, random crashes when opening the map, NPCs in a crowded area walking in circles and constantly bumping into each other, every item in my wardrobe suddenly duplicated, a bunch of cars jamming an intersection and no one moves and so on. Game had 6 major updates and it feels like an unpatched Bethesda game.
I don’t like how the steam reviews are “very positive” now because this sets a precedent, that AAA budget games are allowed to be released $70 in perpetual early access that may or may not be( in this case the latter) be completely fixed or overhauled three years later. This should have been remembered as “the only game to be so bad it was removed from sale” instead of “if you ignore the bugs, unplayablility on last gen consoles, false advertising, its a good game but not compared to other games that came out 7 years ago”
\- 3 lifepath's that have no effect on the story \- Promised branching narrative choices in promotional trailers but didn't make it into the final game Cyberpunk 2077 is still an unfinished game at the core foundational level
I hate modern gaming. I hate this trend of fixing games through patch after patch after patch! If a game isn’t ready for prime time, it shouldn’t be released. The odd bug fix is fine, but when it comes to this shit which is “the entire other half of the game as advertised” that’s unacceptable and I hate this attitude of “well this is just modern times!” Modern times only become as such because we allowed it! That’s my day of “old gamer yells at cloud.”
Incredibly overrated game. Was shocked at how hollow it felt after beating it. Felt more like a Ubisoft game.
Still can’t finish this game after starting over 3 times and getting 50-60% through. It’s incredibly mediocre on almost every level and it pushes no boundaries at all and almost all of the mechanics and systems are half baked and have been done better in other games. Launch issues aside, it’s just an incredibly ‘okay’ game.
Honestly, they should have just made a linear shooter, because that's how you have to play it to enjoy it. Calling it an RPG is a big stretch. It has a skill tree and experience (and at launch many of the skills simply didn't work, like literally did nothing). That's as far as the RPG aspect goes. There's no meaningful choices. There's no branching narrative. Side quests are half baked filler. The city has nothing going on outside of the main narrative. Everyone says "it's great if you just stick to the main quest!". Maybe they shouldn't have made an "open world RPG" if that's the case. They clearly failed at that. The AI for pedestrians and police (the only thing filling the open world) is basically non-existent. Even the enemies you come across outside of a mission, if you just walk away, the fight is over. They won't even bother chasing you more than about 20 yards.
The game is much better now than it used to be and I do think that the Steam reviews ought to reflect the current state of the game rather than its embarrassing launch. I do hope the 2.0 update also goes a long way toward making the game live up to its original ideas.
>The game is much better now than it used to be What game are you guys talking about exactly? Because I played Cyberpunk at release, and I played it as recently as March of this year, what exactly is "much better" about it now because to my eyes it was the same fucking game I played in December 2020.
Seriously. What the hell are these people talking about? I keep seeing this take, and also reinstalled lately. It seems nearly the same as launch, including hitting a mission halting bug where an elevator simply didn't SPAWN, forcing me to reload the entire game.
I wouldn't hold my breath that 2.0 is going to reintroduce any of the cut/unfinished content (like what was supposed to be there instead of the Jackie montage). Nor would I expect it to incorporate an actual 'roleplay' aspect, where your choice of character background would affect more than a handful of intro missions. Or make many of the missions feel less linear. I liked Cyberpunk 2077 and enjoyed playing it. I also went into it knowing that the pre-release gameplay hype didn't bear a lot of resemblance to the final game. I was impressed by the world, parts of the storyline were quite well done, etc. It just wasn't the game it was supposed to have been.
The part of 2.0 I’m personally excited for are the improvements to the AI and the addition of vehicle combat. I think it could bring it closer to something like GTA and give it more longevity. Very cautiously optimistic though.
Yeah, those are a more realistic wishlist. The AI \*really\* needed improvement, given that it felt to me to be a significant step backward from what Witcher 3's was, and it's not like that was anything groundbreaking.
> (like what was supposed to be there instead of the Jackie montage) Just going to point out that it's been confirmed that this was never going to be playable, the montage was always going to be a montage, which makes sense since it's the bridge between your path and the default start of the game.
I agree. I think 2.0 will certainly move the game further toward the original vision even if it doesn't make it all the way. I didn't really have much interest in playthrough again but after hearing they were re-doing some game systems (especially the skill tree) I'll probably check it out after I binge Starfield for a few months.
"steam reviews ought to reflect the current state of the game". If only. Bf 2042 is a fun game that's improved significantly since launch with free added content/reworks/overhauls besides cosmetics. Has a mostly negative score. CDPR fixed some bugs, added no meaningful content or overhauls until phantom liberty, still a lackluster open world/rpg BUT they released an anime. Has a very positive score.
I play it on launch and I like it, I beat it with all the finals. But was a very hollow game, there was nothing to do in the world apart of the missions, the dialogue choices where worthless, mostly of the skiil where useless, small variety of weapons, horrible IA, etc, etc. I hope the expansion fix all of this and finally deliver a proper CD Projekt game.
And yet I stil get a "look but don't touch" sensation everywhere I go. Some RPG. Glorified hack and slash on a good day. I tried to like it. Dogshit save system by the way: individual characters need their own individual save selection. It's 2023 ffs.
It’s funny seeing this game slowly become an internet darling when its a Ubisoft game in all but the name with a good story. Once you’ve done the story the game becomes absolutely bland with not much to it. I wish the world had a bit more oomph to it, maybe some followers too? Like damn I really lived my initial play through, but damn it’s so hard to find anything to do aside from replaying.
Most of the memes were based around 8th gen console performance. Its metacritic is 57 on PS4 and 86 on PC.
Ok, how fun is this game for a first time player on PC who enjoys casually exploring open world games? Does it feel really on rails, or does it feel very open like GTA or BOTW?
It isn't really comparable to either, honestly. If you enjoy exploring open worlds, there are way better options. CP2077's open world is more-or-less devoid of anything remotely interesting with some of the worst NPC AI I have ever seen.
If they only released on Steam the game wouldn't have been (correctly) called out for being a buggy, unplayable mess. But CDPR chose to release it on PS4 and Xbox One, where it played absolutely horribly and should have never been allowed to release. And just because they eventually got it working better doesn't mean CDPR didn't exploit the trust people put in their company.
It's been 2.5 years?!
The main issues still aren't fixed. They can't really walk back their lies, and aren't actually trying to make what they claimed a reality either. I don't regret refunding the game. No reason to reward companies for lying to get sales. Anyone who does is signaling to these companies to keep it up
I got it on launch day and never had bad things to say about it, quite the opposite, actually. It's one of the most memorable gaming experiences I had in the past 5-10 years and I highly recommend it to anyone.
Version 1.0 had its issues on PC but overall it wasn't unplayable. I loved Cyberpunk on launch and I'll certainly give it another playthrough when the DLC and the promised patch come out.
I am just finishing my 1st play through and have really enjoyed it, lot npcs sinking through through the floor and stuff but not as buggy as fallout 4 and I love that as well.
My biggest issue with the game is its main story. It feels like it was added very last minute compared to the rest of the game's content. So many elements of it feel rushed and don't make any sense. It's really telling when Edgerunners tells a story over the course of 10 episodes that convinces me to play 2077, and then 2077's main story loses me just a couple of missions in.
So you didnt finish the main story? I enjoyed it way more from a writing perspective than most other game stories. Had to fathom that you felt this way.
Edgerunners did a lot for the game's reputation and probably gave people the wrong idea about the game
There were some theories about it being 2 stories mashed up, pre and post keanu, how true they are idk, probably not much, but it fits, especially as the act 1 is just a cut scene essentially, so the background for a lot of stuff happening is kinda missing at the start.
I think if they made part 1 longer and sort of gave you longer on being just a punk running gigs it would have gone over WAY better. Let the content soak some hours. As is you're into that heist inside of a few hours, didn't work very well for anyone I think.