Cyberpunk 2077 Grieving Thread

Dreamer said:
I've heard this sentiment before and i honestly don't understand it. How is having stuff in the game you don't want to do bad? Just don't do it, it's optional for a reason.
I don't understand what drives people to 100% open world games, you're clearly not supposed to do every marker you find, the side activities are there as a break from main content or just a way to do something nice on your way to a location. You decide if you want to engage with it so why would you then bw mad that you did.

This would never be a problem if devs just didn't show you where those encounters are on the map by default. People would have no compulsion to do each and every one. But seriously who collects every feather in ACII, what compells you to do that?
Click to expand...
Shut the fuck up, any ~True Gamer~ knows that if you don't collect all the things, then you haven't actually beaten the game. I have no idea why us completionist types do this shit, it may be a really pathetic form of OCD.
 
  • Feels
  • Like
  • Agree
Reactions: Aberforth, Judge Dredd, Bumblino and 5 others
Peasant said:
I have long wondered why they don't just pay a few decently skilled streamers to show off the game. You could give them a few days to mess around with a demo and pull the best bits of footage from that. It probably wouldn't be suitable for a trailer, but I think everyone could appreciate seeing even a few minutes of organic gameplay.
Click to expand...
The best they did was give 4 hours to some youtubers to play through, then let them describe what they played and what they liked/didn't like. Most of them played through the 3 different intros/backstories, so that is already a "set piece". That initially made me feel comfortable listening to their descriptions of what you can and cannot do, but it turns out some of them are these same youtubers who were put into the game (Alanna Pierce), so that taints the "describe through".

I want to see some jank, I want to see someone streaming with a controller walk up to a random NPC and pop them in the head, or fuck up and crash a car, I want to see graphical pop ins and loading times/lifts, I want to see a life bar and a death state. Anything that tells me "this is an actual video game", instead of possibly being some separate file on a high end computer like we saw with No Mans Sky. I haven't kept all that much on top of this game since that 40min play through, but from what I know stuff is being cut, and I don't like it.

I can tolerate jank and graphical hiccups so long as the game is FUN and generally delivers on promises, but i get the sense that they are keeping this game really close to their chest, and I am not looking forward to a NMS 2.0 or TLOU2, where everything shown is lies.
 
  • Agree
  • Like
  • Informative
Reactions: Bumblino, Mikoyan MiG-29, Nguyen Van Phuoc and 6 others
Slimy Time said:
The best they did was give 4 hours to some youtubers to play through, then let them describe what they played and what they liked/didn't like. Most of them played through the 3 different intros/backstories, so that is already a "set piece". That initially made me feel comfortable listening to their descriptions of what you can and cannot do, but it turns out some of them are these same youtubers who were put into the game (Alanna Pierce), so that taints the "describe through".

I want to see some jank, I want to see someone streaming with a controller walk up to a random NPC and pop them in the head, or fuck up and crash a car, I want to see graphical pop ins and loading times/lifts, I want to see a life bar and a death state. Anything that tells me "this is an actual video game", instead of possibly being some separate file on a high end computer like we saw with No Mans Sky. I haven't kept all that much on top of this game since that 40min play through, but from what I know stuff is being cut, and I don't like it.

I can tolerate jank and graphical hiccups so long as the game is FUN and generally delivers on promises, but i get the sense that they are keeping this game really close to their chest, and I am not looking forward to a NMS 2.0 or TLOU2, where everything shown is lies.
Click to expand...
... except what was shown from TLOU2 before release wasn't lies, at least not that i know off. Its just that the rest of the game was repetitive and had a shitty story.
So what, you want cyberpunk to be shown in full before release just to be safe?

Look, whatever they show there is always going to be a counter:
trailer has cool graphics
>its going to get downgraded
trailer has cool looking combat
>its going to be shit, just you wait
trailer shows some cool story
>no, don't worry the rest will be shit
people played the game and liked it
>they can't be trusted, they were probably bought
and then some forum rats dissect every trailer for any sign of a bug or something unfinished

It literally doesn't matter what they show, one way or the other
Just wait 2 months and try it out for yourself instead of inventing new strata of paranoia
 
  • Disagree
  • Like
  • Agree
Reactions: Judge Dredd, Bumblino, XenomorphThot and 6 others
Stop me if I'm nitpicking, but:
  • Even in the footage released a few days ago this game's lip-syncing is distractingly bad.
  • The first-person melee combat looks a lot like Skyrim's. This means cycles of running backward until the enemy makes itself vulnerable by attempting a slow attack, running forward and pressing the attack button, then running backward again.
  • Gunplay looks like it was designed by and for people who don't play first-person shooters (no recoil, no movement inaccuracy, half the weapons look like they basically work like the game has VATS)
Hate to say it, but I think I'm now short on Cyberpunk.
 
  • Feels
  • Informative
Reactions: The_MmmBop_Gang and DanteAlighieri
malt ipecac said:
Stop me if I'm nitpicking, but:
  • Even in the footage released a few days ago this game's lip-syncing is distractingly bad.
  • The first-person melee combat looks a lot like Skyrim's. This means cycles of running backward until the enemy makes itself vulnerable by attempting a slow attack, running forward and pressing the attack button, then running backward again.
  • Gunplay looks like it was designed by and for people who don't play first-person shooters (no recoil, no movement inaccuracy, half the weapons look like they basically work like the game has VATS)
Hate to say it, but I think I'm now short on Cyberpunk.
Click to expand...

To be fair the Witcher 3 also had horrible combat. I think a lot of people forget that CDPR's games are eurojank, really really high production eurojank but still eurojank.

The appeal is mostly about the story and characters.
 
  • Like
  • Agree
  • Disagree
Reactions: Aberforth, Absolutego, AlexJonesGotMePregnant and 12 others
A97F9242-E958-408A-8FC4-C967C9F1D6F3.png


If ResetEra hates this game, then does that mean by default that this is the greatest game of all time?
 
  • Like
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: Aberforth, Judge Dredd, Drain Todger and 5 others
Ruin said:
To be fair the Witcher 3 also had horrible combat. I think a lot of people forget that CDPR's games are eurojank, really really high production eurojank but still eurojank.

The appeal is mostly about the story and characters.
Click to expand...

The eurojank excuse kind of goes out the window when you're able to afford established Hollywood actors instead of resorting to the janitors for voice acting. You can afford to get this one thing that doesn't really affect the game done really well, but you skimp on back of the box bullet point features? Fuck off, that isn't eurojank, that's just a shit game.

Not that I mean that for Witcher 3. The combat isn't worth talking about, but it at least it got the job done and was kinda flashy too. Nothing offensively bad like the next Elder Scrolls is going to be.
 
  • Like
  • Agree
Reactions: Aberforth, Slimy Time, The Demon Pimp of Razgriz and 4 others
if you want AAA cinematics play a fucking waliking game like the uncharted or last of us series, its more important the art direction and the fucking gameplay

Super Hans said:
Not that I mean that for Witcher 3. The combat isn't worth talking about, but it at least it got the job done and was kinda flashy too. Nothing offensively bad like the next Elder Scrolls is going to be.
Click to expand...

if you play on normal maybe, right now im playing new game+ with the hardest difficulty and all the fights are insane and you actually need to apply oils and use the correct signs
 
Last edited:
blablabla said:
if you want AAA cinematics play a fucking waliking game like the uncharted or last of us series, its more important the art direction and the fucking gameplay



if you pay on normal maybe, right now im playing new game+ with the hardest difficulty and all the fights are insane and you actually need to apply oils and use the correct signs
Click to expand...

There are also mods that modify the combat system as well
 
Dom Cruise said:
At least the other ladies were good looking, but I don't understand why they felt like they couldn't show Ciri topless.

Video game nudity will never not amuse me and it only amuses me even more these days because of the SJWs.



I don't understand why anyone would do something like that either.
Click to expand...
Good question. We got most of Ciri's very nice ass as is, so why not throw us those tits too? It couldn't only have been about "Would Geralt fuck her?" for nudity because we got some nudity that would never ever fall into that category.

Couldn't have been about size, because it's not as if Yen was packing much heat (luckily Triss exists for that). Who knows, man? Best not to waste our autism on it, and simply accept there's always gonna be some titties we'll want to see but never will.
 
  • Feels
Reactions: Dom Cruise
Dean Pentel said:
Good question. We got most of Ciri's very nice ass as is, so why not throw us those tits too? It couldn't only have been about "Would Geralt fuck her?" for nudity because we got some nudity that would never ever fall into that category.

Couldn't have been about size, because it's not as if Yen was packing much heat (luckily Triss exists for that). Who knows, man? Best not to waste our autism on it, and simply accept there's always gonna be some titties we'll want to see but never will.
Click to expand...

I guess it's because for all intents and purposes she's Geralt's daughter, but that's not the case for we, the player and she's already presented in a sexy manner, so why not go all the way and show us Ciri's titties?
 
  • Agree
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: FunPosting101, DeadwastePrime, The Demon Pimp of Razgriz and 1 other person
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back