The bugs are embarrassing, duplicate NPCs down to the outfits, walking through solid objects, terrible vehicle physics, mission breaking bugs.
They are selling DLC.
Fuck CDPR.
What the hell is a AAA game to you? Cyberpunk is absolutely AAA.
By which you mean overpriced and underdeveloped, with barely any new concepts to show for it?
It was the same price as every other game, it was only really buggy on old consoles (which it should never have been released on), and they got patches out very quickly to sort out the bugs and issues on PC. And there were plenty of new concepts in the netrunning and biohacking areas of the game. Plus it has a massive story and tons of content.
You should try actually playing it.
It was the same price as every other game
Yeah, overpriced.
I've got over a hundred hours played on it, at $80 CAD that's less than $1 per hour of entertainment. Not at all bad really.
You know Donkey Kong Country 2 was $80 US when it came out, and it could be beaten completely in under 10 hours. Games are cheap nowadays.
Games are cheap nowadays.
Yet the companies still make record profits meanwhile quality has gone down 🤔
Games have gotten vastly bigger and more complex, bugs are going to happen with that being the case. And quality has not gone down, old games had tons of bugs, and without patching available you were just stuck with them.
Go replay the Lion King on SNES, and tell me it's as good as modern AAA games. Nostalgia goggles have blinded you.
Why is the time spent playing a game always used as a marker of how good it is? I can spend 100 hours doing something I hate and feel worse for having done it. I know that is my fault, but still, I can play a good game for five hours and feel like it was worth ten times the price, versus a bad game I may have spent 20 hours playing and regret, waiting for it to get better. Does everyone measure the quality of something based on how much time it took out of their life?
Because I wouldn't have spent 100 hours playing it if I didn't enjoy it.
That's you though, that doesn't translate for everyone so I think it's a weird way to argue about how good something is. If someone argues that a game is good because people spend so many hours on it, it tells me nothing at all about the quality of the game other than you don't get so irritated you quit immediately. If you spent 100 hours on a game and 60 on another, is the 100 hour game automatically better?
For me, usually yes. And I'm the one debating here, and making the point from my perspective, so for this conversation my argument stands. Cyberpunk is a really good game, that I've had a ton of fun playing, and I genuinely enjoyed my time with it more than most games.
I'm not trying to fucking argue I'm just saying my thoughts, can you stop downvoting me lol. I was trying to share my perspective, not convince you ffs.
Cool, more downvotes for you then.
Why do you enjoy being an asshole? I've had a rough day.
Honestly, games need to sell DLC to make money. At least they allow mods for additional content.
IMHO compared to other RPG developers, CDPR is pretty good at what they do, and listening to their player base. I'm not suggesting they be celebrated for being "not total garbage", but most AAA studios are exactly that. If I want a good RPG game and I'm supposed to vote with my wallet, I'm picking Cyberpunk over Starfield.
Yeah, it's really ashame that most AAA companies opt in the quick and easy ways these days. Especially with CDPR, since most of us saw them grow with the witcher series. But I will die on the hill in agreeing with you that Cyberpunk did better in most aspects than Starfield upon release, other than the amount of bugs. In my opinion, Starfield has taken Bethesda's outdated "RPG" formula and became something even more bland and hollow than their last game. It's really sad and disappointing to see honestly
You got downvoted for saying the truth.
No #3 was the deal breaker. I refunded my copy on Steam and ignored the game ever since.
Sunken cost fallacy for some.
I bought it, I enjoyed it enough, part of that enjoyment was the bugs that enabled me to amass tons of cash.
I'm not going to tell myself they delivered the product as promised.
What they did was scummy, what they still do is scummy.
You all got downvoted for not playing since version 1.5, actually - the only complaint here that stuck is vehicle fuckery. "duplicate npcs" just tells me you are stopping to examine characters you literally can't interact with and looking for excuses to bandwagon dunking on a game that was released 6 months early.
I wouldn't call even the final product the same as what they marketed, but if you bought the game and just refused to ever look back that's on you and your expectation management. It was better than acceptable (fun even) all the way from before Edgerunners, mod support was really well done and allowed for users to "fix" things in ways the game has vanilla now (vehicle combat was a mod with far more features than just vehicle combat and most of it is present in the game now, like enhanced NCPD ai).
The only extremely off thing now is AI driving. If you drive anywhere you're bound to wind up with a multiple car pile-up due to just one aggravated AI driver. This is how I know the extended whining is uninformed - anyone complaining heavily about the game that has played recently will know about this, or complain specifically about some of the quests namedropping the expansion.
It's like seeing chatGPT write a negative review, the information is entirely hearsay, and out of date to boot.
Sorry that by release 1.6 it's too much for me to expect not to see duplicate NPCs inside the diner, one of them standing through the table.
AAA game, big money, big disappointment.
Worth it on sale to play through once.
If you need version 1.5 or 100.5 to get a better experience, you are either die hard fan or retards.
Fuck CDPR.
What the hell is a AAA game to you? Cyberpunk is absolutely AAA.
By which you mean overpriced and underdeveloped, with barely any new concepts to show for it?
It was the same price as every other game, it was only really buggy on old consoles (which it should never have been released on), and they got patches out very quickly to sort out the bugs and issues on PC. And there were plenty of new concepts in the netrunning and biohacking areas of the game. Plus it has a massive story and tons of content.
You should try actually playing it.
Yeah, overpriced.
I've got over a hundred hours played on it, at $80 CAD that's less than $1 per hour of entertainment. Not at all bad really.
You know Donkey Kong Country 2 was $80 US when it came out, and it could be beaten completely in under 10 hours. Games are cheap nowadays.
Yet the companies still make record profits meanwhile quality has gone down 🤔
Games have gotten vastly bigger and more complex, bugs are going to happen with that being the case. And quality has not gone down, old games had tons of bugs, and without patching available you were just stuck with them.
Go replay the Lion King on SNES, and tell me it's as good as modern AAA games. Nostalgia goggles have blinded you.
Why is the time spent playing a game always used as a marker of how good it is? I can spend 100 hours doing something I hate and feel worse for having done it. I know that is my fault, but still, I can play a good game for five hours and feel like it was worth ten times the price, versus a bad game I may have spent 20 hours playing and regret, waiting for it to get better. Does everyone measure the quality of something based on how much time it took out of their life?
Because I wouldn't have spent 100 hours playing it if I didn't enjoy it.
That's you though, that doesn't translate for everyone so I think it's a weird way to argue about how good something is. If someone argues that a game is good because people spend so many hours on it, it tells me nothing at all about the quality of the game other than you don't get so irritated you quit immediately. If you spent 100 hours on a game and 60 on another, is the 100 hour game automatically better?
For me, usually yes. And I'm the one debating here, and making the point from my perspective, so for this conversation my argument stands. Cyberpunk is a really good game, that I've had a ton of fun playing, and I genuinely enjoyed my time with it more than most games.
I'm not trying to fucking argue I'm just saying my thoughts, can you stop downvoting me lol. I was trying to share my perspective, not convince you ffs.
Cool, more downvotes for you then.
Why do you enjoy being an asshole? I've had a rough day.
Honestly, games need to sell DLC to make money. At least they allow mods for additional content.
IMHO compared to other RPG developers, CDPR is pretty good at what they do, and listening to their player base. I'm not suggesting they be celebrated for being "not total garbage", but most AAA studios are exactly that. If I want a good RPG game and I'm supposed to vote with my wallet, I'm picking Cyberpunk over Starfield.
Yeah, it's really ashame that most AAA companies opt in the quick and easy ways these days. Especially with CDPR, since most of us saw them grow with the witcher series. But I will die on the hill in agreeing with you that Cyberpunk did better in most aspects than Starfield upon release, other than the amount of bugs. In my opinion, Starfield has taken Bethesda's outdated "RPG" formula and became something even more bland and hollow than their last game. It's really sad and disappointing to see honestly
You got downvoted for saying the truth.
No #3 was the deal breaker. I refunded my copy on Steam and ignored the game ever since.
Sunken cost fallacy for some.
I bought it, I enjoyed it enough, part of that enjoyment was the bugs that enabled me to amass tons of cash.
I'm not going to tell myself they delivered the product as promised.
What they did was scummy, what they still do is scummy.
You all got downvoted for not playing since version 1.5, actually - the only complaint here that stuck is vehicle fuckery. "duplicate npcs" just tells me you are stopping to examine characters you literally can't interact with and looking for excuses to bandwagon dunking on a game that was released 6 months early.
I wouldn't call even the final product the same as what they marketed, but if you bought the game and just refused to ever look back that's on you and your expectation management. It was better than acceptable (fun even) all the way from before Edgerunners, mod support was really well done and allowed for users to "fix" things in ways the game has vanilla now (vehicle combat was a mod with far more features than just vehicle combat and most of it is present in the game now, like enhanced NCPD ai).
The only extremely off thing now is AI driving. If you drive anywhere you're bound to wind up with a multiple car pile-up due to just one aggravated AI driver. This is how I know the extended whining is uninformed - anyone complaining heavily about the game that has played recently will know about this, or complain specifically about some of the quests namedropping the expansion.
It's like seeing chatGPT write a negative review, the information is entirely hearsay, and out of date to boot.
Sorry that by release 1.6 it's too much for me to expect not to see duplicate NPCs inside the diner, one of them standing through the table.
AAA game, big money, big disappointment.
Worth it on sale to play through once.
If you need version 1.5 or 100.5 to get a better experience, you are either die hard fan or retards.