Cyberpunk 2077 Grieving Thread

#lurker said:
You can make any game free (HFR wasn't "free", but same concept) and the numbers are immediately going to show lower and lower completion rates.
Click to expand...
And my point was that people didn't care about Hi Fi Rush until they closed down the studio so if they weren't finishing a free game...

Would you say the Steam Chart is a better metric, since I see people post those all the time?
 
xXx: State of the Union said:
And my point was that people didn't care about Hi Fi Rush until they closed down the studio so if they weren't finishing a free game...

Would you prefer it if I posted the Steam Chart? People love to post those as success metrics these days.
Click to expand...
I'm not arguing about HFR, I'm just saying achievements aren't a good indicator. Baldurs Gate 3, considered one of the best games in years (not my opinion) only has a 20% completetion rate. Image what that would look like if you made the game free.

Edit: Out of curiosity I looked at HFR's achievements and the difficulty achievements do not stack, which makes my case further.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
  • Autistic
Reactions: SIMIΔN and xXx: State of the Union
xXx: State of the Union said:
Would you say the Steam Chart is a better metric, since I see people post those all the time?
Click to expand...
Depends on the type of game. A multiplayer games player count would be the best defining metric in both short and long term (so long as they can retain it for that long) Whereas a single player story driven game would be how long have people been talking about it after release like Dark Souls as an example, many games copy elements from it to this day for better or worse. A good average would be how well the game is doing 90 days from release, if it was good on day one it'll be good on day 91 and if not you can get a refund.
 
  • Lunacy
Reactions: xXx: State of the Union
I have finally started playing. Between last night and today I have about ten hours in. And I think I am going to bail for a while.

The first thing I saw when the game engine loaded and displayed a scene was a bunch of T-posing NPCs sliding around. My character's clothes clipped on and off for a while. Sometimes I have to restart the game because it keeps getting darker and darker and darker.

But that is mostly cosmetic. The gameplay is pretty bland. It's alright but nothing that is keeping me playing once the pretty graphics have run their course (which they have). And I don't mind playing more and will eventually finish the game, probably; but I find myself either annoyed with the combat (bored) or frustrated by the dumb dialog and "worldbuilding" bullshit. Lots of "tell" and very little "show", despite the visuals.

Are these the same people that made Witcher 1, 2 and 3? Sheesh I don't know. After my posts the other day I started replaying Witcher. I think I am going to focus on that because I have more desire to play, even though Cyberpunk is new to me and I've played Witcher half a dozen times.

Cyberpunk, in my opinion seems pretty pedestrian. It's fine. Just fine... I see why people like it and I would recommend that people give it a try.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AWizard, Tor Lugosi and The Ghost of Kviv
xXx: State of the Union said:
Wouldn't this literally prove the point of people not playing/caring about a game?
Click to expand...
Going by the achievement stats, an astounding 23.7% of people who bought Red Dead Redemption 2 on Steam finished the main story line. 20.5% the full epilogue. 9% did the optional honor missions the game all but throws in your face. Over 50% of players never even beat Chapter 2 at 42.5%. By comparison, 37.5% of the Steam players of Cyberpunk 2077 managed to finish the main story. More people chatted with Hanako in Nocturne OP 551 at 48.1%, a higher rate than making it to Clemens Point in RDR2!
 
  • Informative
  • Like
Reactions: Night Raiders, Shadfan666xxx000, 1999 prick and 2 others
Sniperwoof said:
Huh, it's only like 20-25 hours long. Do people not understand the combat or something?
Click to expand...
I don't know how you complete it in 20-25 hours when Act 1 is about 40 hours of content and on average it takes about 80-100 hours to complete the game.


#lurker said:
Baldurs Gate 3, considered one of the best games in years (not my opinion) only has a 20% completetion rate.
Click to expand...
About 50% of people completed Act 1, which takes about 40 hours to reach.
About 40% of people completed Act 2 and takes about 50-60 hours to do.
These numbers are already impressive for such a large game even if the players haven't beat it.

the reason why Half of the 40% don't bother with finishing the game when they are so close is because Act 3 is such a boring chore to go through.
I did multiple playthroughs but I barely bother with Act 3 because it feels like a chore to go through.
 
  • Like
Reactions: The Ghost of Kviv
1999 prick said:
I don't know how you complete it in 20-25 hours when Act 1 is about 40 hours of content and on average it takes about 80-100 hours to complete the game.
Click to expand...
Yea those numbers greatly confuse me everything I see them posted The act 1 map is fucking tiny and basically a linear pathway and took me about six hours.

According to Fextralife I did all the main and side content except for one side quest at the Gith Creche that I missed.

Unless people are just staying in corners for hours or spending huge amounts of time at camp talking to NPCs I have no idea how these kinds of hours are being logged
 
1999 prick said:
About 50% of people completed Act 1, which takes about 40 hours to reach.
About 40% of people completed Act 2 and takes about 50-60 hours to do.
These numbers are already impressive for such a large game even if the players haven't beat it.
the reason why Half of the 40% don't bother with finishing the game when they are so close is because Act 3 is such a boring chore to go through.
I did multiple playthroughs but I barely bother with Act 3 because it feels like a chore to go through.
Click to expand...
I was just using it as an example, not deriding BG3 (even if It's not my type of game). Most games, regardless of length, will have a 20-50% completion rate.
Trying to find a recent game with the same length is hard, but take Doom Eternal for example; similar length as HFR (~10 hours) and similar completion rate (~30%).
 
#lurker said:
I was just using it as an example, not deriding BG3 (even if It's not my type of game). Most games, regardless of length, will have a 20-50% completion rate.
Trying to find a recent game with the same length is hard, but take Doom Eternal for example; similar length as HFR (~10 hours) and similar completion rate (~30%).
Click to expand...
Don't think I elaborated on the point I was trying to make here.
But the point is player engagement, and to have 50% of the players on a long as game is impressive.
Close example I can think of is Witcher 3, which only 63% completed the prologue which is about 10-15 hours iirc.

Though then again Witcher 3 has gone on sale multiple times and people like to shop and hoard games rather than play them, and BG3's last sale was a 10% discount, so it might vary in the future.
 
1999 prick said:
I don't know how you complete it in 20-25 hours when Act 1 is about 40 hours of content and on average it takes about 80-100 hours to complete the game.
Click to expand...
focusing on the story almost solely can do that (allowing some room for a few major side missions like panam's or judy's)
 
Been playing some more. Still haven't changed my opinion too much. I really liked the boxing sub quest but I sort of thought there would be five or six matches per-district and not five or six matches in total.

What a missed opportunity. Seriously a dumb decision on the part of the developers. It wouldn't have even taken that much extra work. I expected to have a whole gym of people to fight after I beat that Rhino chick (she even implied as much) but instead they just stand around and go aggro if I walk up the stairs.

Dumb.
 
  • Like
  • Feels
Reactions: I.B. Niggin, WhoBusTank69 and The Ghost of Kviv
TheDarknessGrows said:
Are these the same people that made Witcher 1, 2 and 3?
Click to expand...
Not really. If I remember right the guy running the show basically worked them to death to the point they all quit and were replaced during the second(?) reboot of the project. I think they brought in a bunch of Canadians to work on it, not sure, been a few years.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TheDarknessGrows
Another thing. I am over 40 hours into the game and have no idea what "choom" and "gonk" mean. I can bullshit my way through "preem", but I still roll my eyes.

All of these terms pull me right out of the game because they seem really forced.

Oh! And " ripperdoc" is so dumb. Call it a surgeon or something not "future". When Takemura asks after the first car chase: " Need to get to rippudocu." I was about fucking out. It sounds so dumb.
 
Last edited:
  • Disagree
  • Like
  • Autistic
Reactions: CrazyKahoots, ChampFantana, Raisincrest and 2 others
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back