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.
Don't complain about downvotes, or you'll just get more downvotes, it's one of the basic rules of the internet.
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.
Don't complain about downvotes, or you'll just get more downvotes, it's one of the basic rules of the internet.