Cyberpunk 2077 Grieving Thread

I'm 10 hours in and I'm really liking it. It's no GOTY but I don't regret buying it. To be fair, my bugs are mostly just funny and not game breaking.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GloJojo
PinkRibbonScars said:
Bugs are the least of the games problem. Stuff like the complete lack of AI and fake scripted sequences with no fail state make it unplayable to me

Also the cops do indeed spawn literally behind you. If you stand in a corner they won't spawn

Click to expand...
Jesus dude, you may want to go a bit easier on that hateboner of yours, you'll tear something.
 
  • Mad at the Internet
  • Disagree
  • Dumb
Reactions: ChadBrazilian, graywolf88, NSJAP and 22 others
Rekkington said:
I'm on the side of the theories that the game was started and scrapped multiple times and the current version isn't actually 8 years of work. Also that there was a disconnect between the teams and people leaving and starting over. It's not a Crackdown 3 total and complete lie situation, but it seems like with like 100 small tweaks it could be way better.

Also, side note, I don't even think people want a big open world anymore. Metro Exodus showed us a great balance in that regard, so did the Deus Ex games. I liked Assassins Creed Odyssey due to the scale and beauty of it all, but you quickly figure out they only made like 7 NPC models they just cycle through to save time. But that's always the tradeoff and by now everyone knows that (especially Ubisoft.)
Click to expand...
FYI same thing likely happened to RDRII, Anthem, DA:I, DA4, VtM:B, etc. etc.

It seems like it's an increasing problem with the big blockbusters, in that their desire to do everything makes them susceptible to bloat and a lack of a direction. Toss onto that the increased corporatization (and its inefficiencies/conflicts) of the industry and the prioritization of gratuitous detail and 'next-gen' graphics over unflashy game mechanics, and you end up with sky-high expectations and increasingly narrow pathways to get there.

You'll end up with 8-year-long dev periods where countless proof-of-concepts + vertical slices get made and thrown out, where games end up having to bridge console generations, and where the final game is produced in a mad rush when the publisher puts their foot down/money starts running out. Sometimes it works (RDRII, DA:I), sometimes it doesn't (Anthem).

Conversely, it seems like Ubisoft also sort of gets away with it due to the fact that their games are so formulaic and that assets/mechanics can be recycled across multiple concurrent projects. Of course, that brings up its own issues as well, but that's another topic.

Overall, I think Cyberpunk isn't nearly as bad as some make it out to be, but it's clear that CDPR hasn't finished their homework yet, and that some of what they submitted is just mad scribbles. It'll need another year of patches and improvements before it can be considered an excellent game.
 
Last edited:
  • Agree
  • Like
  • Winner
Reactions: SmokeyMcRunFast, Luck Skeleton, Allakazam223 and 7 others
jje100010001 said:
It seems like it's an increasing problem with the big blockbusters, in that their desire to do everything makes them susceptible to bloat and a lack of a direction. Toss onto that the increased corporatization (and its inefficiencies/conflicts) of the industry and the prioritization of gratuitous detail and 'next-gen' graphics over unflashy game mechanics, and you end up with sky-high expectations and increasingly narrow pathways to get there.
Click to expand...
I wish they would make graphics on the level of the year 2000 to 2005 or so, those were perfectly adequate, and instead invest all the extra work into making the world, atmosphere, gameplay and immersion and amount of stuff to do incredibly high level. I honestly don't need lip synced perfection, mocapped animations and all that. In fact sometimes the adherence to realism these days can get annoying imo. Like when you run in a game and then you want to stop, but the game wants to be realistic at all costs, so you have insane inertia and it takes a whole second to stop. And all the extra detail etc., you really just kinda get used to it. In old games you had a low res texture on a building and you just knew there's no way to interact with the building. Today you would have a hi res texture on it which creates the illusion of it being more real, but you still can't interact with it in any meaningful way, so it just kinda feels like you're moving through a world pretending to be more than it is, instead of a world that is honest about what it is. So many work hours and also computational cycles must be wasted on these stupid details its insane. Imagine taking the CPU/GPU power invested into all these graphics and instead putting it into some amazing gameplay stuff like awesome AI, or advanced physics simulations or maybe bodies tearing apart in a more granular way when you shoot them, like from a real weapon. Such a thing would make the game feel much more awesome imo, even tho it might look a little lower spec overall. It would be gold with a turd surface, but today's games are turds with a gold surface. Two decades old game mechanics that didn't change in the best case and got worse/more annoying in the worst case (auto regen etc), same level of interaction with the world that 20 year old games had, only difference being sharp textures and lighting and shit.

Think about it, how many hours of work is it to introduce, say, a new weapon on the level of modern graphics? Probably many hours/days just modelling the weapon, then more days creating a texture, then all the effects, sounds, hiring an actor to pretend firing the weapon, set up the mocap studio, etc. But with older level graphics you could probably shit out and implement a new weapon within hours if you're a talented modeller, give it some decent-but-passable animation and be done. That way you could play around much more and create much more content, resulting in more variety in game.
 
  • Like
  • Agree
  • Feels
Reactions: Borrisokeane, Allakazam223, MissLosR and 10 others
jje100010001 said:
FYI same thing likely happened to RDRII, Anthem, DA:I, DA4, VtM:B, etc. etc.

It seems like it's an increasing problem with the big blockbusters, in that their desire to do everything makes them susceptible to bloat and a lack of a direction. Toss onto that the increased corporatization (and its inefficiencies/conflicts) of the industry and the prioritization of gratuitous detail and 'next-gen' graphics over unflashy game mechanics, and you end up with sky-high expectations and increasingly narrow pathways to get there.

You'll end up with 8-year-long dev periods where countless proof-of-concepts + vertical slices get made and thrown out, where games end up having to bridge console generations, and where the final game is produced in a mad rush when the publisher puts their foot down/money starts running out. Sometimes it works (RDRII, DA:I), sometimes it doesn't (Anthem).

Conversely, it seems like Ubisoft also sort of gets away with it due to the fact that their games are so formulaic and that assets/mechanics can be recycled across multiple concurrent projects. Of course, that brings up its own issues as well, but that's another topic.

Overall, I think Cyberpunk isn't nearly as bad as some make it out to be, but it's clear that CDPR hasn't finished their homework yet, and that some of what they submitted is just mad scribbles. It'll need another year of patches and improvements before it can be considered an excellent game.
Click to expand...
Moral of the story: Fallout: New Vegas.
 
  • Like
  • Informative
  • Autistic
Reactions: Brain Problems, ducktales4gameboy, DeusVult and 3 others
HensKenKline said:
I wish they would make graphics on the level of the year 2000 to 2005 or so, those were perfectly adequate, and instead invest all the extra work into making the world, atmosphere, gameplay and immersion and amount of stuff to do incredibly high level. I honestly don't need lip synced perfection, mocapped animations and all that. In fact sometimes the adherence to realism these days can get annoying imo. Like when you run in a game and then you want to stop, but the game wants to be realistic at all costs, so you have insane inertia and it takes a whole second to stop. And all the extra detail etc., you really just kinda get used to it. In old games you had a low res texture on a building and you just knew there's no way to interact with the building. Today you would have a hi res texture on it which creates the illusion of it being more real, but you still can't interact with it in any meaningful way, so it just kinda feels like you're moving through a world pretending to be more than it is, instead of a world that is honest about what it is. So many work hours and also computational cycles must be wasted on these stupid details its insane. Imagine taking the CPU/GPU power invested into all these graphics and instead putting it into some amazing gameplay stuff like awesome AI, or advanced physics simulations or maybe bodies tearing apart in a more granular way when you shoot them, like from a real weapon. Such a thing would make the game feel much more awesome imo, even tho it might look a little lower spec overall. It would be gold with a turd surface, but today's games are turds with a gold surface. Two decades old game mechanics that didn't change in the best case and got worse/more annoying in the worst case (auto regen etc), same level of interaction with the world that 20 year old games had, only difference being sharp textures and lighting and shit.

Think about it, how many hours of work is it to introduce, say, a new weapon on the level of modern graphics? Probably many hours/days just modelling the weapon, then more days creating a texture, then all the effects, sounds, hiring an actor to pretend firing the weapon, set up the mocap studio, etc. But with older level graphics you could probably shit out and implement a new weapon within hours if you're a talented modeller, give it some decent-but-passable animation and be done. That way you could play around much more and create much more content, resulting in more variety in game.
Click to expand...
It's almost like game devs are trying to hit the Uncanny Valley as hard as they can to really increase sales.
 
  • Winner
  • Agree
  • Like
Reactions: GloJojo, HensKenKline and DamageJoy
I'm enjoying it well enough. Story's been great so far and the jankyness has been more amusing than game breaking. The one thing I cant stand though is the fucking UI. I dont really get a good sense of what im looting and the menus are horrorific.
 
  • Informative
  • Agree
Reactions: GloJojo, Fluoxetine Man and DamageJoy
jje100010001 said:
FYI same thing likely happened to RDRII, Anthem, DA:I, DA4, VtM:B, etc. etc.

It seems like it's an increasing problem with the big blockbusters, in that their desire to do everything makes them susceptible to bloat and a lack of a direction. Toss onto that the increased corporatization (and its inefficiencies/conflicts) of the industry and the prioritization of gratuitous detail and 'next-gen' graphics over unflashy game mechanics, and you end up with sky-high expectations and increasingly narrow pathways to get there.

You'll end up with 8-year-long dev periods where countless proof-of-concepts + vertical slices get made and thrown out, where games end up having to bridge console generations, and where the final game is produced in a mad rush when the publisher puts their foot down/money starts running out. Sometimes it works (RDRII, DA:I), sometimes it doesn't (Anthem).

Conversely, it seems like Ubisoft also sort of gets away with it due to the fact that their games are so formulaic and that assets/mechanics can be recycled across multiple concurrent projects. Of course, that brings up its own issues as well, but that's another topic.

Overall, I think Cyberpunk isn't nearly as bad as some make it out to be, but it's clear that CDPR hasn't finished their homework yet, and that some of what they submitted is just mad scribbles. It'll need another year of patches and improvements before it can be considered an excellent game.
Click to expand...

I agree. Some people made the point about the car physics and how obvious it is they just run on these rails, and someone made the point of "well this is the first time they've had to do car physics or car AI, ever." And on one hand I get that, but on the other if it sucks then just don't do it. Nobody would have been mad if there was no driving, just make it like Minority Report or something where all the cars are AI and move on all these wild pathways and maybe play around with more verticality. We already accepted a future where this shit existed and we were cool with it! In fact that's probably way more realistic in a tech dystopia.

While I went into this expecting a more dynamic Deus Ex sort of thing, we all know they were loudly promising that Night City will feel organic, alive, energetic, almost like it was the main character of the game. Just don't do that!
I'm also on the side of people saying they might have very well finished this game a couple years back and spent the entire rest of the time doing graphic work and optimizing for Next Gen consoles, which seems like a believable profit incentive to me.
 
  • Like
  • Informative
Reactions: Allakazam223, GloJojo, Male Idiot and 3 others
Rekkington said:
I agree. Some people made the point about the car physics and how obvious it is they just run on these rails, and someone made the point of "well this is the first time they've had to do car physics or car AI, ever."
Click to expand...
I don't buy that excuse when people drop it. CDPR had horse races in Witcher and people on horses riding about all over the map. They couldn't translate that concept over?

And plenty of other games have had vehicles in them. They couldn't look at those or make a few phone calls?
 
  • Like
  • Agree
Reactions: GloJojo, Zero0, Rekkington and 2 others
HensKenKline said:
I wish they would make graphics on the level of the year 2000 to 2005 or so, those were perfectly adequate, and instead invest all the extra work into making the world, atmosphere, gameplay and immersion and amount of stuff to do incredibly high level.
Click to expand...
Thats kinda what Nintendo have been doing since forever, lagging in graphics band raw processing power but focusing on polishing their own games and new ips a lot, and they get mocked relentlestly for it. Nintendon't never has enough blast processing!

Its insane how 10 fat bros with the help of beer and pizza and a little outsourcing could crank up a AAA title in a year or two during the ps2 era, now 300 people with extra pajeets all over the world are not even enough . Althought AA and indie still has modest teams doing down to earth games, its only big studios who have gone insane becasue infinite growth is what corporations are about but there are way more independent and smaller studios than ever so it offsets some of it, Almost every niche genre that was forgotten during the 00s is getting new life in the indie scene, i think some middle ground could be really cool, like more smaller pitch teams and smaller games coming from big studios rather than them putting all eggs in one basket, AAA talent doing more modest but artistically risky stuff.
 
  • Agree
  • Winner
  • Informative
Reactions: joseantonio, Dark Edea, SiccDicc and 2 others
My biggest problem is that gunplay is, not good. This game really needs some kind of VATS or bullet time.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Dood.
Ruin said:
My biggest problem is that gunplay is, not good. This game really needs some kind of VATS or bullet time.
Click to expand...
I agree, also the difficulty spikes way too hard, I can't even fight gang members on the street anymore, since they instantly kill me.
 
Worst parts so far:
-Driving is terrible. I feel like the most dangerous person in night city whenever I get in a car, simply because I can barely get from point A to point B without causing a drunken accident
-"Bad guys are too high level so they're boss fights" is still here and worse since they're in the random encounter things...but now you're in a single city with no level guide so you'll run into high level opponents without meaning to and can't run away without some civilian being executed in front of you. I ran into several Valentinos doing an early quest and had to cheese the fights.
-Fights are easy to cheese. I spent one of the valintino fights hiding behind a wall that I could shoot through but the bad guys can't and just plinking them to death.
-Literally no difference between lethal and non-lethal combat. There was one mission that acknowledged the difference, and there is an eye mod that I got really early on that turns all your weapons nonlethal in return for not dealing headshot damage. So I spent that one mission gunning down people left and right and got thanked for how peacefully I solved it.

Good parts so far:
-Plot is interesting enough, the characters you are supposed to like are likeable.
-There is some variety in the guns. Tech and smart play differently enough that you can mix up how you're non-lethally shooting the bad guys in the head. Power is supposed to ricochet but that seems absolutely useless and in practice they're just normal guns.
-Weapon Leveling! You can now upgrade your weapons with you so you don't have to replace your gun constantly, without much investment. This includes unique and legendary weapons so you don't have to abandon your trusty rusties because they became useless five levels ago.
 
  • Informative
  • Like
Reactions: Allakazam223, GloJojo, Male Idiot and 2 others
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back