zhalonia:

ok witcher fan lol , for me i could care less about that game but hey glad you enyoied it.. but i have my own opinion about that shitty game that was made for nvidia with the redicouless hairphysics xD you do you boo ill keep my opinions for myself as i don't post much aswell , cyberpunk was one of the games i looked forward too if you can't understand that i am mad because they released early is my problem not yours and you shouldn't even care for my opinion or what i write here got it ? and for a devs point of view oh yes i am very ashamed for all the people that worked on this game only to be ruined by 1 ceo that made the decision to ruin it for everyone and release early ! that is why i am mad and rightfully so , the bullshit needs to stop. and yes then im talking about you saying " its ok to release an unfinished game aslong as we have the brain to wait and buy it when its finished to our personal standard ? LOL ! did you really think im gonna keep a list of unfinished released games that i will keep an eye on untill its playable ? LOL whatever , maybe i should not have replied i think you know how dumb you sound.

AlmondMan:

They threw away any good will they created with Witcher 3 with Cyberpunk. 100 hour crunch weeks for devs to make the rushed release dates, then blaming the QA team for all the bugs on the consoles, marketing being just a bunch of lies about what the game was. Please stop yourself with the "how many lines of code did you write" - they took no responsibility, they just went "oh... uhm, yeah, uh, the QA team sure didn't do their job!" and just continued to rake in money. Just because you don't write code doesn't mean you can't criticize and that you can't see that corporate overlords just messed it up in the end. They didn't start actual development till a few years ago, the game today represents something like ~3 years of development, not 7. That's why they had to crunch so much, the game was all over the place and more akin to something like Anthem in its problems. It is supremely ironic that corporate politics ruined a cyberpunk game.

To both of you. You, of course, are entitled to your opinion. Rightfully so. Now, @zhalonia Caring less for a well deserved and awarded game from the same dev team make you smarter and makes me a fan boy that sound dumb. I like you style. Still, I would agree: maybe we don't know what decision that CEO took and ruined the thing, even that the dev team gave 200% during the dev process and all. And please, twisting words and putting words in mouth doesn't work. I wasn't OK with releasing an unfinished game and I will never be. And nobody is forced to apply or even take in account my personal way of buying games or software. But, hey whatever, if it makes you look smarter, just go ahead. And calling out names for sure gets you a lot of attention. From the forums mods, not from me. @AlmondMan I asked about writing lines of code just to emphasize the situation where one tries to be in other's shoes. And yes, you can criticize and ask for your money back. Nobody forced any gamer to buy Cyberpunk and one is free to do whatever with money. And to finish this. I have no interest in follow this up and lose time in endless forum discussion. You are entitled to say whatever and for sure each one of you have reasons to say what you want. I respect that. Cheers,

Cyberpunk 2077 has me really confused. I own it, I've seen the bugs, and I don't really mind them. But I don't get the "complexity" talk. The game isn't complex at all. It has a large city, many bad people, more NPCs, some cars, some upgrades and more guns. So, vastness yes, But nothing more than that, not complexity. No choices that shape the future, no real interaction with the living city, nothing. And that, in my opinion is more of a problem than the bugs. It seems like a wasted opportunity for something great.

Mpampis:

Cyberpunk 2077 has me really confused. I own it, I've seen the bugs, and I don't really mind them. But I don't get the "complexity" talk. The game isn't complex at all. It has a large city, many bad people, more NPCs, some cars, some upgrades and more guns. So, vastness yes, But nothing more than that, not complexity. No choices that shape the future, no real interaction with the living city, nothing. And that, in my opinion is more of a problem than the bugs. It seems like a wasted opportunity for something great.

Maybe they're talking about complexity of environment. The world and the many interactions and ghosts and mirrors created to make it seem like a real place is a complex creation. Even if there's nothing in the way of more complex AI at all, getting that many things to work together is complex, regardless. That the game seems to be completely linear and unneeding of this great big open world, and probably would've been better served if they'd just created a series of levels you progress through, is a completely different thing. In advertisement in the past they discussed how it'd be a great big open world RPG with lots of choices that would affect the story and its outcome. How there'd be branching paths with backgrounds that mattered and so on and so forth. Seems none of that is present and they would've been better served with having less a focus on an open world that is unbelievable due to poorly implemented AI solutions like the police, GTA1 in 1997 had more complex police AI, e.g. they'd not just shoot you - there was a primitive escalation and this was carried through and refined in newer GTA games. A lack of things like a faction system, GTA 2 had gangs with respect systems in 1999, and so on... why is it there if they didn't do anything this obvious with it? A baffling game that obviously was rushed and poorly directed.

Mpampis:

Cyberpunk 2077 has me really confused. I own it, I've seen the bugs, and I don't really mind them. But I don't get the "complexity" talk. The game isn't complex at all. It has a large city, many bad people, more NPCs, some cars, some upgrades and more guns. So, vastness yes, But nothing more than that, not complexity. No choices that shape the future, no real interaction with the living city, nothing. And that, in my opinion is more of a problem than the bugs. It seems like a wasted opportunity for something great.

Even Witcher 3 seems to have more complexity in that regard. The one thing that annoys me in CP2077 is the flickering with DLSS enabled when checking inventory, map and so on, so kinda forced to play it with RT+DLSS disabled. Rest of the game seems ok, playing at slow pace so I might not run into certain bugs before they are fixed.

Chess:

You can simplify anything to crap if you really want to, but I strongly believe there are some fantastic games in the past 10 years. People who enjoyed PC through the 90's and 00's have the tendency to compare everything to that feeling of playing Doom, System shock or half-life for the very first time. We should stop that. I ogled my eyes out when playing Alyx for the first time as well.

I would add new Wolfenstein games, and Dishonored ones - pretty solid in all aspects.

AlmondMan:

That the game seems to be completely linear and unneeding of this great big open world, and probably would've been better served if they'd just created a series of levels you progress through, is a completely different thing. In advertisement in the past they discussed how it'd be a great big open world RPG with lots of choices that would affect the story and its outcome. How there'd be branching paths with backgrounds that mattered and so on and so forth.

This is actually incorrect, and only holds true, if you only play the main story line. But there are major side quests with major side characters, that can go many ways, and actually end up heavily influencing the main story in the end aswell. You could argue many of these major side quests should have been part of the main story line, but CDPR said they wanted to make the main story shorter than witcher 3 (cause plebs have the attention span of goldfish), thus branched out alot of significant stuff to side quests.

DeskStar:

Actually playing through both wolfenstein games now again.

Do you enjoy them? I did a lot.

Dragam1337:

This is actually incorrect, and only holds true, if you only play the main story line. But there are major side quests with major side characters, that can go many ways, and actually end up heavily influencing the main story in the end aswell. You could argue many of these major side quests should have been part of the main story line, but CDPR said they wanted to make the main story shorter than witcher 3 (cause plebs have the attention span of goldfish), thus branched out alot of significant stuff to side quests.

The marketing, response from reviews, players who played it and friends who played it that I've gotten so far has confused me as to what this game even is at this point. One friend described it as reminding him of playing a Call of Duty game because it was so linear and that he could find nothing of the RPG elements that they had promised. Then others are like "i'm on my 5th playthrough with a bazingo archetype" and I'm here watching videos of t-posing characters, people falling through the world, flying cars, police spawning in behind the player and guys smoking their assault rifle. So - at this point I'm just going to wait with this one for another few years. I didn't play Witcher 3 till this year either, and that was a fun experience. Even if the main quest felt a bit dragged and dull at times. There were excellent moments, and I really enjoyed the DLC - didn't actually finish the Blood & Wine one yet - the news of the RT patch made me wait.

suty455:

Best game ever for me at least Unreal 2004 still very actively played lots of mods by the community just hours of pure mindless frag and be fragged its great, but I may be biased as have played all the series since Unreal 99 but 04 was the pinnacle and its not been beaten since...not yet anyway

Yeah, that game really got it right. It looked great for its time, while being very easy on hardware. Not only was it easy to mod for but the game openly welcomed them. The music was great. There was a good selection of characters. There were tons of fun game modes, and so many ways to play them. With community maps, you could play the game for the better part of a whole week before you played them all for every mode. It didn't take itself too seriously, while also being a very seriously competitive game. The bots were actually a real challenge, and were what really honed my skills to the point that people would vote-ban me because they thought I was cheating (I never have). And... it had 64 bit Linux support, which was a nice bonus to me considering how hardly any games at the time were ported. Though back then, I mostly gamed on Windows.

AlmondMan:

The marketing, response from reviews, players who played it and friends who played it that I've gotten so far has confused me as to what this game even is at this point. One friend described it as reminding him of playing a Call of Duty game because it was so linear and that he could find nothing of the RPG elements that they had promised. Then others are like "i'm on my 5th playthrough with a bazingo archetype" and I'm here watching videos of t-posing characters, people falling through the world, flying cars, police spawning in behind the player and guys smoking their assault rifle. So - at this point I'm just going to wait with this one for another few years. I didn't play Witcher 3 till this year either, and that was a fun experience. Even if the main quest felt a bit dragged and dull at times. There were excellent moments, and I really enjoyed the DLC - didn't actually finish the Blood & Wine one yet - the news of the RT patch made me wait.

If you haven't played the game yourself, then perhaps stop posting about what the game is or isn't...

Personally did not see any side missions affect the ending of the game except for one...just a single side mission that provided an additional twist to an existing choice. The only real affect those side missions had was with who left V a video message that played while the credits rolled. Plus, the play on that one line from MIB II: Where there is death, there will always be death, is not really a choice at all. It is just additional smoke and mirrors to make one think the a choice produces a particular outcome. [SPOILER="Ending Choices"] 1. Become part of the Borg Collective 2. Indirectly choose to Have Saul die in addition to Hanako and have Goro pissed at you 3. Indirectly choose to have Rouge die in addition to Hanako and have Goro pissed at you 4. Indirectly choose to have Yorinobu's body be inhabited by Saburo (messed up family dynamic: think Altered Carbon) and have Panam and Judy pissed at you Whole story plays out like a mix up of DOA (1949/remake 1988) and The Fugitive (1963 tv/1993 film) [/SPOILER]

Dragam1337:

If you haven't played the game yourself, then perhaps stop posting about what the game is or isn't...

This is such a fanboy comment. I haven't posted anything as factual other than my experience with an apparent identity crisis for the game. I'm the perfect archetype for what this game in advertisement said it was - then when it launched everyone is saying it's a complete circus. Bugs all over, so bad that it gets pulled from 2 stores. Everyone saying the only good way to play it is in Google Stadia because a completely different company made that one. On top of all the bugs, which I could imagine would get sorted out, there's reports of a lack of basic systems that would be normal in a big budget open world game in 2020. There's reports that it's not an RPG at all; there's no branching storyline or different outcomes to produce; it's just smoke and mirrors with dialog choices making it seem like you did something, but the response might be the same regardless of what you say. Reports that it's more like an action game with some RPG elements, but it's not like the new Deus Ex games. So what even is it? I just don't know! I was looking forward to this, but didn't at all follow marketing or hyping. I just saw the response that came when it launched, and that's what I've left it at. That's my experience and it's probably one that many people had. At least the ones who go around not pre-ordering everything anymore. So I'm sorry if I came off as "THIS IS FACT" - that was my frustrating experience with the marketing and reception. It was more a question than anything; help me understand what the game is. But the problems with the workforce being set to 100 hour work weeks, QA being blamed for somehow now finding bugs so bad that the game couldn't run on half of the platforms it launched on and had to be pulled from sales. Corporate fuckery that really shouldn't be defended in any way, shape or form. It'd be one thing if the suffering these people went through resulted in a working game that was met with unanimous praise. But it didn't. So there's really no excuse for the company, they should've gone ahead and taken full responsibility for it and just come out and said that they wanted some of that covid-19 xmas sales money.

Clouseau:

Personally did not see any side missions affect the ending of the game except for one...just a single side mission that provided an additional twist to an existing choice. The only real affect those side missions had was with who left V a video message that played while the credits rolled. Plus, the play on that one line from MIB II: Where there is death, there will always be death, is not really a choice at all. It is just additional smoke and mirrors to make one think the a choice produces a particular outcome.

And then you have someone here again saying the same thing I heard - that the game has no choices or impact, that the only thing that happens is a voice over on the end credits? OK. That's all fine! I don't mind a linear game, that's cool and great. But why then did they advertise a fully branching storyline and all this other stuff, if what they're releasing isn't anything like that :| using smoke and mirrors to create the illusion of choice is great - but it works the best in games where you also have the ability to have some outcomes happen differently. They used it to great effect in Witcher 3, I thought.

Fox2232:

I think he has right to put trust to what his friends tell him and what he sees on videos. Your view is same as: "You are not politician, so stop talking politics." "You are not teacher, so stop teaching." ...

No, it is not comparable in any way, as this game is a product, where as politics are just opinions. It is comparable to having opinions about a car, without having tried said car. You might have some idea what the car is like, but you haven't actually tried it yourself, so you dont really know. Aka you should stfu about making statements about said car, until you have tried it yourself. Unless it's limited to "it's ugly".

AlmondMan:

This is such a fanboy comment. I haven't posted anything as factual other than my experience with an apparent identity crisis for the game. I'm the perfect archetype for what this game in advertisement said it was - then when it launched everyone is saying it's a complete circus. Bugs all over, so bad that it gets pulled from 2 stores. Everyone saying the only good way to play it is in Google Stadia because a completely different company made that one. On top of all the bugs, which I could imagine would get sorted out, there's reports of a lack of basic systems that would be normal in a big budget open world game in 2020. There's reports that it's not an RPG at all; there's no branching storyline or different outcomes to produce; it's just smoke and mirrors with dialog choices making it seem like you did something, but the response might be the same regardless of what you say. Reports that it's more like an action game with some RPG elements, but it's not like the new Deus Ex games. So what even is it? I just don't know! I was looking forward to this, but didn't at all follow marketing or hyping. I just saw the response that came when it launched, and that's what I've left it at. That's my experience and it's probably one that many people had. At least the ones who go around not pre-ordering everything anymore. So I'm sorry if I came off as "THIS IS FACT" - that was my frustrating experience with the marketing and reception. It was more a question than anything; help me understand what the game is. But the problems with the workforce being set to 100 hour work weeks, QA being blamed for somehow now finding bugs so bad that the game couldn't run on half of the platforms it launched on and had to be pulled from sales. Corporate fuckery that really shouldn't be defended in any way, shape or form. It'd be one thing if the suffering these people went through resulted in a working game that was met with unanimous praise. But it didn't. So there's really no excuse for the company, they should've gone ahead and taken full responsibility for it and just come out and said that they wanted some of that covid-19 xmas sales money. .

Read the above.

Kevin Mauro:

They got dropped from Sony's official digital store front Their share value fell over 29% in light of all the issues They had no choice but to fix their game. I see your point but I mean to add by emphasizing how they aren't doing anyone favors here. Also as opposed to Bethesda there was a complete campaign against this game to practically lose money for its incompetence. People are really sick of it... Fallout 76 type game releases.

Even worse, the keep reiterating that the PC version was "fine", although it has the exact same game bugs, but hides the worst glitches out because most PCs have this game installed on an SSD and have a faster CPU than a console. There is also no word about the list of promised missing features, touted literally a couple of months before release. Anyone 'member that the NPCs will be a complex AI system living in the city, the interactivity constantly implied (they even showed you getting food from a stand, 95% of stands in the game are closed), you can't got into places marked "Open" because they're "locked", in essence the whole place is one huge corridor. The interactions with Police or any faction / gang are basically non-existent. There is also zero faction interactivity (which was also touted). I have slaughtered Maelstrom and Tiger Claws so many times, and yet nothing ever changes. Ever. People compare this to Bethesda games very wrongly. Bethesda games look bad, but they're full of interactive elements. In short: They will patch the worst offending bugs, but they will not fix any of the actual game content. How do I know that? They pretend that this is fine, and that's the worst offence. I can understand bugs on a rushed release, pretending that all the things you said a couple of months before never happened, or that everyone understood wrongly, is pure bullshit. EDIT: Remember braindances, concsious stylistic choices? "Open city" (you can't go anywhere basically except the large "corridors" and the alleys, there are no shops or anything open, not even with repeated content)?

Fox2232:

So, if your car loving friends had opportunity to ride it, and car professionals did review this car. You still can't make opinions based on what they say and should be silenced? What a modern view. So why don't you follow your own advice and keep quiet about freedoms you apparently do not value. As you did not properly experience them and effect of their loss. (Not rly, keep spewing ..., you have legal right to it. And it should remain that way.) You know, I do not have 1st hand experience of CP2077 too. But I follow man behind Kingdom Come and seen his view on it as he did play it. Seen many others. And I can say, there is certain overlap of views on this game between people who are/were deep inside gaming business and what had been written here about CP2077. You may not like it, but you and nobody else has legal right to just tell people to stfu on their opinions unless they violate law.

I absolutely do not think anyone should attempt to make statements about any product, without having tried it for themselfs... cause while a professional car reviewer might find that a car has comfortable suspension, you might find that it is way too hard for your liking. They might find that it's too loud, while it's fine for you. And likewise while someone else might have a shit experience with a game, you might find that you end up having a great time. And again as said, you cant compare my statements with anything else other than mouthing off about products you havent tried yourself...

In Gabe we trust

Kevin Mauro:

Those are the points of review in cases where trials or demos aren't available. To keep you from spending extra money needlessly buying stuff.

Sure, you can decide whether or not to buy a product based upon reviews, but you cant make a statement as to the state or quality of the product, when you havent tried it yourself.

Fox2232:

I can, and I did. See? Easy. I can even tell you who can tell me what I can and can't. And that's dude with shotgun in my face. Then my choices and priorities change. (For a brief moment.) Because I can do anything I want to do as long as I am willing to face consequences. And what's consequence of stating that I did form opinion about game based on experiences of people I trust? Someone stating that I should be silenced? If anything, it is reward in itself. Can you even imagine, how many people now see, how far this trend of muting something someone does not agree with has gone. YT

When you haven't tried it yourself, you are just repeating what someone else said... in other words your "opinion" is worthless.

Better to not post and be thought the fool than to post and remove all doubt. -Gabe Lincoln. (random Newell pun inserted here)

Let's take the whole "Those that do not have first hand experience need to stfu" a step further. Why do reviews/reviewers even exist. They need to stop spewing their view on said products. How dare they attempt to influence any decisions of those that have not experienced said product themselves. Let's have everyone make the same uninformed decision to support a company that released a broken/does not work as advertised product. After all it is my right to make such a blind choice. How dare anyone attempt to take that away. The whole point of reviews is to inform individuals who are interested in a product; help that individual form an opinion about that product. If one is able to form an opinion without having first hand experience, from valid sources, how dare they communicate those opinions since they are just repeating what was said by another. That whole opinion is worthless since first hand experience with said product is missing. How then does one ferret out which reviewers are good and which ones are not worth the time if not talked about. Everyone...from this point forward any and all threads are only open for posting to those who have first hand experience with the topic. Everyone else gtfo. What a beautiful world that would be...utopian dreams. EDIT: just threw up in my mouth after writing that utopian comment