It's weird how much press cyberpunk gets. Like we get week by week updates on how the dev team feels.
Almost as if they spent 163 million dollars on marketing. That's why there's so much astroturfing and constant press releases. They're paying big money to turn the reputation around.
Yep and it worked, I bought the game on release which something out of character for me, but shelved it after a few days. Yeah PC couldn't handle it and it was buggy af but, recently gave it another shot and it's definitely improved, much more immersive and fun
Did the opposite for me. I was so tired of seeing stuff about it back on Reddit that I filtered it out. I think it made me less likely to buy the game due to exhaustion. People just wouldn't shut the fuck up about it and nothing else could get through.
I also ignored the game for a long time until the anime came out on Netflix, then i bought the same game on steam during a sale. Honestly super worth it for $30, (talking original 2077 and not the dlc) so much story side quests and content. Hours of fun and shit that's hilarious haha
Yup, I still haven't played it, but I'll probably get around to it eventually. But the hype and fallout really did deter me from playing it at all. I dislike hype, and the fallout made the issues seem worse than they were.
I fear we're in the minority.
Yeah, I've heard it's a lot better these days and I'll probably get around to it in the next couple of years (I'm sure you know how backlogs are).
Kinda same for me. I bought it on release and while I could play some, I had to wait a good 6 months to actually play the game to completion due to all the crashes. However, I started a new game recently with the 2.0 patch and picked up the Phantom Liberty DLC and I'm having a lot of fun with it. And I think the DLC is really well done. Say what you will about CDPR, but those folks know how to make good DLC.
I bought it after the bad news and right before they came with updates as the price was good.
I run it on a 3070 and left out the dlc when i heard: "the game will be more demanding" which was my sign to uninstall and move on.
I enjoyed it for roughly 200h and got a second wind from edge runners where i modded Lucy into my game, all in all i really enjoyed myself.
The game isn't actually all that more demanding, they just did actual bench testing. I have a 3050ti mobile with 4gb VRAM and I get about 45ish FPS with settings on medium, and dips into like 28. I think my range is 25-72 or something. Some parts of the DLC, like in Dogtown, I do get less FPS, however there are some parts so far that I'm getting the best frames I've gotten. Like 60 during a major boss fight, it was crazy. Of course then after it dipped down again but still. It's absolutely worth it to play, can you totally run it on a 3070
The Cyberpunk 2077 hype got me excited because I love the Deus Ex games. I was ready to mainline that technological dystopian future.
After hearing about the terrible reception, I decided it was just time to play Human Revolution again.
Starfield is currently in a far worse state than cyberpunk was at release. There was a hate train for CP77.
I completely disagree with that, starfield isn't nearly as buggy as cyberpunk was
On pc, it is. But you gotta choose where to put your faith, and Bethesda had blind faith from its players for ages.
not in my experience it isn't I have like 50 hours in starfield and I've had very little bugs at all
That is exactly what anecdotal evidence is. And that is precisely why it's not relyable.
You are giving anecdotal evidence.
What isnt anecdotal evidence is that 2077 was so buggy it was preventing people from playing the game, and the game breaking bugs were well documented.
While starfield has no consistent and unavoidable game breaking issues. As shown by zero documentation of stable game breaking bugs.
Theyre not the same.
couldn't have said it better myself
Starfield wasn't overhyped unlike Cyberpunk, so it got way less flack and was received much better. It also doesn't crash every couple of minutes for most, so that is a plus.
Cyberpunk didn't crash for most. It worked well at release for most actually. See the steam rating for proof.
Meanwhile some friends can't play starfield because it does crash all the time. And I'm not even talking about its shortcomings as a game.
What I suspect is that the game work on console, and that's the only thing that matters to your online reputation. That was the only true sin of CP77, and the only success of starfield, and that's all the difference.
It was not the only true sin of cyberpunk. I played on release on a 3090 and it was bland, felt rushed, full of bugs, and the city felt hollow with things spawning in and out breaking immersion. It just wasn't a fun game unless you stuck to the rails, and even then it felt half-assed. The intro where I'm rushed into the city and then they just skip over all the character introductions with a cutscene really left a sour taste in my mouth.
They hyped it up to be this living breathing city with ultimate freedom and they simply didn't deliver.
Starfield, however, everyone knew they were using the same old engine, with the same old game design, it was just going to be Skyrim in space. And it was.
It was not the only true sin of cyberpunk. I played on release on a 3090 and it was bland
I don't think I've ever met anyone who thought the Sinnerman quest was 'bland' - and if you thought The Hunt was bland, uh, I'm sorry. I had to go hug my kids.
Maybe I've somehow made it into my 40's without being jaded.
I'm talking about the world on the whole, because unfortunately I got bored and was so disappointed in the offerings that I probably didn't play the missions you mentioned, and dropped it out of my to-play list, as other games have been more engaging.
Well in my opinion you missed out big. I played about... 6-8 months after launch and it's now my 3rd most played game on steam. The world-building is incredible, where you're constantly overhearing things happening around the city that later you actually get to witness. Some of the quests are probably my favourite in any game, ever. Not to mention the combat (especially post 2.0) is way more fun than I was expecting. Using Mantis Blades you feel like a bug from Starship Troopers. I have a screenshot somewhere of three arms and two legs all airborne in my vision as I tore through some unfortunate gangers.
I haven't played the DLC yet, but it's next in my queue.
Did you have the game on a hdd or an ssd? That was a big technical problem of CP77. On an ssd it worked perfectly fine.
Bland, rushed and full of bugs is an exaggeration and very subjective. Starfield is worst on that aspect.
Again, look at steam ratings if you want to see an objective rating of the game since launch. CP77 had 20% of bad review despite the flaming even on media that never talked about a video game before, and that is since the first month of release. It's a bit early for starfield but current evaluation is at 28% of bad reviews.
Starfield has a worst launch than CP77. That is a hard fact.
Again, no it wasn't perfectly fine. Of course, I had it on an M2 drive. No amount of whitewashing can cover up the fact it was broken and unfinished on launch, and that's why there was such a well deserved backlash.
They promised things that simply weren't in the game. There were clear unfinished parts of the world, the story, and the gameplay.
Starfield is Skyrim in space. If you like that formula, great, you got Skyrim in space.
It's not whitewashing when the statistics talk for themselves.
Saying something wasn't broken when it was, is whitewashing.
The statistics are that the majority of people were disappointed in the release.
Statistics from your ass. There's no more to talk if you deny the reality of things.
Ha, I see you didn't play on previous gen consoles. It was borderline unplayable on Xbox One at release. Terrible frame rate, massive portions of the city disappearing and/or low res, crashes everywhere...
Granted Starfield isn't even playable on Xbox One, but between low FPS and normal Bethesda style bugs, I don't think it's in a worse state than Cyberpunk was on PC/Series.
It's funny how the double standards work. "normal Bethesda style bugs"...
I don't think it's really a double standard. I was using that as an example of a negative that impacts gameplay in Starfield but doesn't make it completely unplayable like Cyberpunk was. I didn't say "Starfield is perfect, but Cyberpunk sucks".
Personally I think some issues with AI pathing and dodgy procedural generation (Bethesda style bugs) is not quite as bad as the whole world failing to load causing you to fall through the map and die, for example.
I remember when everyone was joking about T posing in cyberpunk, i've seen it happen in cyberpunk just once... and 3 times in starfield.
Much of this feels subjective. If you focused on the main game then cyberpunk was great, but look to hard in the details and the illusion fell flat.
Star field feels much more complete in these details but anything that is not top level hardware gives a worse performance and looks then i had in modded skyrim.
The game simply didn't work on outdated hardware. No one in good faith is denying that.
Bad faith is taking example of the game running on outdated hardware as reprentative of what the game was.
CP77 worked perfectly well on the hardware it that was able to run it.
On the other hand I have friends unable to play starfield because the game crashes regularly. Their computer can run any other recent game like CP77 or BG3 for example.
That is anecdotal evidence. I'm not saying starfield is unplayable. Unlike you are saying CP77 was unplayable at launch, which is wrong. It was unplayable on outdated hardware.
Sure, you can frame it as not working on outdated hardware. I even mentioned that Starfield didn't even release on that generation of consoles.
The problem is the Cyberpunk DID release on that generation of consoles. You buy a copy on console, you expect it at least to function. My anecdotal evidence: it was literally unplayable. O stopped playing and never went back.
Comparing that to PC is more akin bad faith. There's a huge range PC wise and while its unacceptable for a certain combo of hardware to be unable to run the game, expecting outdated hardware to run the game on PC is expected. Are you saying there were no such issues like this for Cyberpunk on PC at launch?
Expecting outdated hardware to run a game is never expected and it has never been. Crysis for example even based its communication on the fact it couldn't run on even 2 years old hardware. Supreme commander was notoriously hard on the hardware. Hardware before the advent of multiplatform had a life expectancy of between 2 and 5 years.
I played the game at release and I finished it before Christmas, so before the January patch. I had no bug whatsoever. The game ran smoothly from start to finish.
I'm a pc gamer. So I know to beware of pc spec for a new game. Sorry you were fooled into thinking the game would work fine on an outdated machine. But cdpr was quite nice with it and the refunds. Which should prove their good faith. My friend couldn't get a refund for starfield.
I was fooled into thinking an Xbox One game would be playable on an Xbox One? What are you even talking about?
This sounds like you played from a HDD instead of a SSD. That part of the system requirements is quickly becoming "not a suggestion". I realize most console players don't touch their hardware at all, but what you're describing is exactly the set of problems with running it from an HDD aside from the audio usually being scratchy/choppy in addition to all that on PC as well.
I have an external SSD, but that's besides the point. The whole point of a console is that it's a standardised piece of hardware and you can expect games to run on it out of the box.
Why are people disputing the fact that the game barely ran on Xbox One on release? That was what most of the bad PR was about at the time...
Huge parts of the game were brilliantly done. The writing, voice acting, motion capture are some of the best ever done in a video game. The environment and assets are incredible, the amount of music and soundwork and ambient dialogue is just insane.
They just crunched it too hard and pushed it out too soon. The foundation was there, but there were two many bugs and half baked systems that means that no matter how good the foundation was, the gameplay loop suffered, and immersion was killed.
It was never a bad game, it was a brilliant game made with love and passion, pushed out before it was done.
I feel for the devs more than anything, because they didn’t want to release it. Marketing Dept pushed to have it released against their protests, the typical “just ship it” mentality from people who sell things but don’t appreciate how physics work, or how broken the product may still be. When all the customer feedback hit, the devs were like “we know. We needed more time.”
The main positive thing I can see from it all is that the especially ravenous toxic pre-release behavior from customers has changed a bit. People seem more accepting of games getting pushed back so bugs are worked out and things are polished more. That “just ship it” mentality of customers seems to have throttled down quite a bit, which, ironically, was part of what drove marketing dept to release CP2077 before it was ready.
🎶 it’s the cirrrrrrrcle of liiiife 🎵🎶
Not to mention they massively over promised a game that seemed like it was meant to revolutionize every aspect it touched, but instead released a (imo) pretty fun open world game that was a bit of a shitshow on release.
I'd say there were at least three many bugs
Crunch Time and overwork, only to rush out a buggy mess that was almost universally panned.
To be fair, this wasn't the workers' faults, but I can imagine that plus the backlash took its toll...
8 plus years of development. And a story completely rewritten to shoehorn in a meme celebrity.
This game had disaster written all over it.
Honestly, I think I would have liked the game a lot more if it had just let us fall and rise in status instead of montaging that part.
I hated Keanu by the end of this game and I went into it as someone who liked his movies
Yeah layoffs will hurt morale id say
Didn't they get death threats online too, that probably made things even worse
Man, gamers have no chill.
If you want to go after someone, go after the people in charge.
Seriously. If game companies were warehouses, the devs would be stockers, shippers and receivers. They do not get to make the big picture decisions.
Nah, it's more like a factory where the devs build and operate the machines. They may be responsible for smaller issues, but they're not the ones deciding that your EV truck sucks at hauling and towing things (i.e. being a truck), they just build to the specs given the time and material constraints they're given. Blame the designers and other higher-ups.
And let's keep this in perspecitve: You spent 60 bucks you'd rather not have in hindsight. I mean... it's not nothing by any means... but it's not an unrecoverable financial loss either...
If they want to threaten someone then they should do it face-to-face, not hiding behind the internet.
I'd go as far as to say maybe don't threaten anyone with death
Or just don't threaten anyone at all. If you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all.
While i completely agree that nobody should be a target of a hate speech, i kind of understand how frustrating cyberpunk 2077 was at release compared to what CDPR promised.
That's just an example of what happens when you overhype people and extremely underdeliver. Spoiler: they hate you.
In the current state of the internet, they probably started getting death threats shortly after the project was announced cuz the kerning on an in-game billboard was a little off.
Doesn't take much now-a-days.
All marketing and directorships fault.
I get the game is fine now or whatever, but it's too late for me. I moved on a long time ago and will probably never finish it
When the DLC dropped they apparently redid the whole progression system so it’s more in line with what fans wanted. It honestly might be worth another try.
Playing thru it again, It's great.
I heard they added enemy scaling and people hate that?
It's true. I don't hate it per se, but on very hard the first (nomad) car chase was actually impossible and I had to turn down the difficulty to pass it.
Now that I'm level 40, everything is way too easy again.
It was impossible on Hard too. 🙃
This should have been free. No more money from me.
The changes to the progression system, along with other system overhauls, are free. They're part of the 2.0 update.
The DLC adds a new region and plot line and is paid.
It is. Base game improvement atr just a (free) patch. They just happened to drop a paid dlc at the same time
So the improvement in liberty city like police etc are in a free patch?
If yes that's good to know
For me the game still isn't "fine." It's a lot more stable now but even with a completely fresh install and save I'm still running into a lot of the problems that was present during launch like all the civilians looking the same regardless of the setting you're on, NPCs running into each other and then choking up sections of the map. I just keep running into these NPC blobs where they just stand there and do nothing. There's still things they said they fixed like npcs materializing out of nowhere.
Your loss, it's a great game
agreed, but some people have a hard time changing their mind even when presented with facts
I played 40 hours and did most of the main story up until the final act. I had just come off playing almost 200 hours of the witcher 3 and the experience, the emptiness of it, the disappointment devastated me. So yeah I'm sure they've made some updates, but I'll always be left with that sadness of how long I waited and how horrible it was
I love and have well over 350 hours in Witcher 3 over the course of 3 playthroughs, and I just got cyberpunk and played it for the first time with the release of the 2.0 patch (and the DLC), and I have to say, I'm at around 120 hours and still have plenty left to do and am still having a blast.
I never rush the main story in games though. I want to squeeze every drop of content I can out of my first playthrough, bc I likely won't be doing another for a really long time.
I've been playing for over a hundred hours and still find new things. Don't know what you're talking about being empty.
Meanwhile I've never been able to get farther than 20 hours into Witcher 3 without being bored. Different strokes for different folks.
An opinion, no matter how much you agree with it, will always remain an opinion and will never become a fact.
Something subjective is impossible to be a fact, or it wouldn't be subjective.
I read that the company that was supposed to be doing QA testing really fucked them.
oh i bet
Fixing Cyperbunk was probably more important for team morale and keeping employees from exodusing then it was from a sales standpoint.
Has anyone found out why the devs felt bad after the release of their game? Any ideas at all. (Just kidding I pre-ordered that shit like a loser, they earned the morale-melt 100%)
They 100% don't. The management and the publisher on the other hand can die in a fire
I guess they were just following orders
The game is eye candy and the story is decent
It doesn't feel like a AAA game
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.
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.
It's weird how much press cyberpunk gets. Like we get week by week updates on how the dev team feels.
Almost as if they spent 163 million dollars on marketing. That's why there's so much astroturfing and constant press releases. They're paying big money to turn the reputation around.
Yep and it worked, I bought the game on release which something out of character for me, but shelved it after a few days. Yeah PC couldn't handle it and it was buggy af but, recently gave it another shot and it's definitely improved, much more immersive and fun
Did the opposite for me. I was so tired of seeing stuff about it back on Reddit that I filtered it out. I think it made me less likely to buy the game due to exhaustion. People just wouldn't shut the fuck up about it and nothing else could get through.
I also ignored the game for a long time until the anime came out on Netflix, then i bought the same game on steam during a sale. Honestly super worth it for $30, (talking original 2077 and not the dlc) so much story side quests and content. Hours of fun and shit that's hilarious haha
Yup, I still haven't played it, but I'll probably get around to it eventually. But the hype and fallout really did deter me from playing it at all. I dislike hype, and the fallout made the issues seem worse than they were.
I fear we're in the minority.
Yeah, I've heard it's a lot better these days and I'll probably get around to it in the next couple of years (I'm sure you know how backlogs are).
Kinda same for me. I bought it on release and while I could play some, I had to wait a good 6 months to actually play the game to completion due to all the crashes. However, I started a new game recently with the 2.0 patch and picked up the Phantom Liberty DLC and I'm having a lot of fun with it. And I think the DLC is really well done. Say what you will about CDPR, but those folks know how to make good DLC.
I bought it after the bad news and right before they came with updates as the price was good.
I run it on a 3070 and left out the dlc when i heard: "the game will be more demanding" which was my sign to uninstall and move on.
I enjoyed it for roughly 200h and got a second wind from edge runners where i modded Lucy into my game, all in all i really enjoyed myself.
The game isn't actually all that more demanding, they just did actual bench testing. I have a 3050ti mobile with 4gb VRAM and I get about 45ish FPS with settings on medium, and dips into like 28. I think my range is 25-72 or something. Some parts of the DLC, like in Dogtown, I do get less FPS, however there are some parts so far that I'm getting the best frames I've gotten. Like 60 during a major boss fight, it was crazy. Of course then after it dipped down again but still. It's absolutely worth it to play, can you totally run it on a 3070
The Cyberpunk 2077 hype got me excited because I love the Deus Ex games. I was ready to mainline that technological dystopian future.
After hearing about the terrible reception, I decided it was just time to play Human Revolution again.
Starfield is currently in a far worse state than cyberpunk was at release. There was a hate train for CP77.
I completely disagree with that, starfield isn't nearly as buggy as cyberpunk was
On pc, it is. But you gotta choose where to put your faith, and Bethesda had blind faith from its players for ages.
not in my experience it isn't I have like 50 hours in starfield and I've had very little bugs at all
That is exactly what anecdotal evidence is. And that is precisely why it's not relyable.
You are giving anecdotal evidence.
What isnt anecdotal evidence is that 2077 was so buggy it was preventing people from playing the game, and the game breaking bugs were well documented.
While starfield has no consistent and unavoidable game breaking issues. As shown by zero documentation of stable game breaking bugs.
Theyre not the same.
couldn't have said it better myself
Starfield wasn't overhyped unlike Cyberpunk, so it got way less flack and was received much better. It also doesn't crash every couple of minutes for most, so that is a plus.
Cyberpunk didn't crash for most. It worked well at release for most actually. See the steam rating for proof.
Meanwhile some friends can't play starfield because it does crash all the time. And I'm not even talking about its shortcomings as a game.
What I suspect is that the game work on console, and that's the only thing that matters to your online reputation. That was the only true sin of CP77, and the only success of starfield, and that's all the difference.
It was not the only true sin of cyberpunk. I played on release on a 3090 and it was bland, felt rushed, full of bugs, and the city felt hollow with things spawning in and out breaking immersion. It just wasn't a fun game unless you stuck to the rails, and even then it felt half-assed. The intro where I'm rushed into the city and then they just skip over all the character introductions with a cutscene really left a sour taste in my mouth.
They hyped it up to be this living breathing city with ultimate freedom and they simply didn't deliver.
Starfield, however, everyone knew they were using the same old engine, with the same old game design, it was just going to be Skyrim in space. And it was.
I don't think I've ever met anyone who thought the Sinnerman quest was 'bland' - and if you thought The Hunt was bland, uh, I'm sorry. I had to go hug my kids.
Maybe I've somehow made it into my 40's without being jaded.
I'm talking about the world on the whole, because unfortunately I got bored and was so disappointed in the offerings that I probably didn't play the missions you mentioned, and dropped it out of my to-play list, as other games have been more engaging.
Well in my opinion you missed out big. I played about... 6-8 months after launch and it's now my 3rd most played game on steam. The world-building is incredible, where you're constantly overhearing things happening around the city that later you actually get to witness. Some of the quests are probably my favourite in any game, ever. Not to mention the combat (especially post 2.0) is way more fun than I was expecting. Using Mantis Blades you feel like a bug from Starship Troopers. I have a screenshot somewhere of three arms and two legs all airborne in my vision as I tore through some unfortunate gangers.
I haven't played the DLC yet, but it's next in my queue.
Did you have the game on a hdd or an ssd? That was a big technical problem of CP77. On an ssd it worked perfectly fine.
Bland, rushed and full of bugs is an exaggeration and very subjective. Starfield is worst on that aspect.
Again, look at steam ratings if you want to see an objective rating of the game since launch. CP77 had 20% of bad review despite the flaming even on media that never talked about a video game before, and that is since the first month of release. It's a bit early for starfield but current evaluation is at 28% of bad reviews.
Starfield has a worst launch than CP77. That is a hard fact.
Again, no it wasn't perfectly fine. Of course, I had it on an M2 drive. No amount of whitewashing can cover up the fact it was broken and unfinished on launch, and that's why there was such a well deserved backlash.
They promised things that simply weren't in the game. There were clear unfinished parts of the world, the story, and the gameplay.
Starfield is Skyrim in space. If you like that formula, great, you got Skyrim in space.
It's not whitewashing when the statistics talk for themselves.
Saying something wasn't broken when it was, is whitewashing.
The statistics are that the majority of people were disappointed in the release.
Statistics from your ass. There's no more to talk if you deny the reality of things.
Ouh I touch a sensible subject it seems!
Ha, I see you didn't play on previous gen consoles. It was borderline unplayable on Xbox One at release. Terrible frame rate, massive portions of the city disappearing and/or low res, crashes everywhere...
Granted Starfield isn't even playable on Xbox One, but between low FPS and normal Bethesda style bugs, I don't think it's in a worse state than Cyberpunk was on PC/Series.
It's funny how the double standards work. "normal Bethesda style bugs"...
I don't think it's really a double standard. I was using that as an example of a negative that impacts gameplay in Starfield but doesn't make it completely unplayable like Cyberpunk was. I didn't say "Starfield is perfect, but Cyberpunk sucks".
Personally I think some issues with AI pathing and dodgy procedural generation (Bethesda style bugs) is not quite as bad as the whole world failing to load causing you to fall through the map and die, for example.
I remember when everyone was joking about T posing in cyberpunk, i've seen it happen in cyberpunk just once... and 3 times in starfield.
Much of this feels subjective. If you focused on the main game then cyberpunk was great, but look to hard in the details and the illusion fell flat. Star field feels much more complete in these details but anything that is not top level hardware gives a worse performance and looks then i had in modded skyrim.
The game simply didn't work on outdated hardware. No one in good faith is denying that.
Bad faith is taking example of the game running on outdated hardware as reprentative of what the game was.
CP77 worked perfectly well on the hardware it that was able to run it.
On the other hand I have friends unable to play starfield because the game crashes regularly. Their computer can run any other recent game like CP77 or BG3 for example.
That is anecdotal evidence. I'm not saying starfield is unplayable. Unlike you are saying CP77 was unplayable at launch, which is wrong. It was unplayable on outdated hardware.
Sure, you can frame it as not working on outdated hardware. I even mentioned that Starfield didn't even release on that generation of consoles.
The problem is the Cyberpunk DID release on that generation of consoles. You buy a copy on console, you expect it at least to function. My anecdotal evidence: it was literally unplayable. O stopped playing and never went back.
Comparing that to PC is more akin bad faith. There's a huge range PC wise and while its unacceptable for a certain combo of hardware to be unable to run the game, expecting outdated hardware to run the game on PC is expected. Are you saying there were no such issues like this for Cyberpunk on PC at launch?
Expecting outdated hardware to run a game is never expected and it has never been. Crysis for example even based its communication on the fact it couldn't run on even 2 years old hardware. Supreme commander was notoriously hard on the hardware. Hardware before the advent of multiplatform had a life expectancy of between 2 and 5 years.
I played the game at release and I finished it before Christmas, so before the January patch. I had no bug whatsoever. The game ran smoothly from start to finish.
I'm a pc gamer. So I know to beware of pc spec for a new game. Sorry you were fooled into thinking the game would work fine on an outdated machine. But cdpr was quite nice with it and the refunds. Which should prove their good faith. My friend couldn't get a refund for starfield.
I was fooled into thinking an Xbox One game would be playable on an Xbox One? What are you even talking about?
This sounds like you played from a HDD instead of a SSD. That part of the system requirements is quickly becoming "not a suggestion". I realize most console players don't touch their hardware at all, but what you're describing is exactly the set of problems with running it from an HDD aside from the audio usually being scratchy/choppy in addition to all that on PC as well.
I have an external SSD, but that's besides the point. The whole point of a console is that it's a standardised piece of hardware and you can expect games to run on it out of the box.
Why are people disputing the fact that the game barely ran on Xbox One on release? That was what most of the bad PR was about at the time...
And nearly 10 years of hype
probably gaming’s understatement of the week
Huge parts of the game were brilliantly done. The writing, voice acting, motion capture are some of the best ever done in a video game. The environment and assets are incredible, the amount of music and soundwork and ambient dialogue is just insane.
They just crunched it too hard and pushed it out too soon. The foundation was there, but there were two many bugs and half baked systems that means that no matter how good the foundation was, the gameplay loop suffered, and immersion was killed.
It was never a bad game, it was a brilliant game made with love and passion, pushed out before it was done.
I feel for the devs more than anything, because they didn’t want to release it. Marketing Dept pushed to have it released against their protests, the typical “just ship it” mentality from people who sell things but don’t appreciate how physics work, or how broken the product may still be. When all the customer feedback hit, the devs were like “we know. We needed more time.”
The main positive thing I can see from it all is that the especially ravenous toxic pre-release behavior from customers has changed a bit. People seem more accepting of games getting pushed back so bugs are worked out and things are polished more. That “just ship it” mentality of customers seems to have throttled down quite a bit, which, ironically, was part of what drove marketing dept to release CP2077 before it was ready.
🎶 it’s the cirrrrrrrcle of liiiife 🎵🎶
Not to mention they massively over promised a game that seemed like it was meant to revolutionize every aspect it touched, but instead released a (imo) pretty fun open world game that was a bit of a shitshow on release.
I'd say there were at least three many bugs
Crunch Time and overwork, only to rush out a buggy mess that was almost universally panned.
To be fair, this wasn't the workers' faults, but I can imagine that plus the backlash took its toll...
8 plus years of development. And a story completely rewritten to shoehorn in a meme celebrity.
This game had disaster written all over it.
Honestly, I think I would have liked the game a lot more if it had just let us fall and rise in status instead of montaging that part.
I hated Keanu by the end of this game and I went into it as someone who liked his movies
Yeah layoffs will hurt morale id say
Didn't they get death threats online too, that probably made things even worse
Man, gamers have no chill.
If you want to go after someone, go after the people in charge.
Seriously. If game companies were warehouses, the devs would be stockers, shippers and receivers. They do not get to make the big picture decisions.
Nah, it's more like a factory where the devs build and operate the machines. They may be responsible for smaller issues, but they're not the ones deciding that your EV truck sucks at hauling and towing things (i.e. being a truck), they just build to the specs given the time and material constraints they're given. Blame the designers and other higher-ups.
And let's keep this in perspecitve: You spent 60 bucks you'd rather not have in hindsight. I mean... it's not nothing by any means... but it's not an unrecoverable financial loss either...
If they want to threaten someone then they should do it face-to-face, not hiding behind the internet.
I'd go as far as to say maybe don't threaten anyone with death
Or just don't threaten anyone at all. If you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all.
While i completely agree that nobody should be a target of a hate speech, i kind of understand how frustrating cyberpunk 2077 was at release compared to what CDPR promised.
That's just an example of what happens when you overhype people and extremely underdeliver. Spoiler: they hate you.
In the current state of the internet, they probably started getting death threats shortly after the project was announced cuz the kerning on an in-game billboard was a little off.
Doesn't take much now-a-days.
All marketing and directorships fault.
I get the game is fine now or whatever, but it's too late for me. I moved on a long time ago and will probably never finish it
When the DLC dropped they apparently redid the whole progression system so it’s more in line with what fans wanted. It honestly might be worth another try.
Playing thru it again, It's great.
I heard they added enemy scaling and people hate that?
It's true. I don't hate it per se, but on very hard the first (nomad) car chase was actually impossible and I had to turn down the difficulty to pass it. Now that I'm level 40, everything is way too easy again.
It was impossible on Hard too. 🙃
This should have been free. No more money from me.
The changes to the progression system, along with other system overhauls, are free. They're part of the 2.0 update.
The DLC adds a new region and plot line and is paid.
It is. Base game improvement atr just a (free) patch. They just happened to drop a paid dlc at the same time
So the improvement in liberty city like police etc are in a free patch?
If yes that's good to know
For me the game still isn't "fine." It's a lot more stable now but even with a completely fresh install and save I'm still running into a lot of the problems that was present during launch like all the civilians looking the same regardless of the setting you're on, NPCs running into each other and then choking up sections of the map. I just keep running into these NPC blobs where they just stand there and do nothing. There's still things they said they fixed like npcs materializing out of nowhere.
Your loss, it's a great game
agreed, but some people have a hard time changing their mind even when presented with facts
I played 40 hours and did most of the main story up until the final act. I had just come off playing almost 200 hours of the witcher 3 and the experience, the emptiness of it, the disappointment devastated me. So yeah I'm sure they've made some updates, but I'll always be left with that sadness of how long I waited and how horrible it was
I love and have well over 350 hours in Witcher 3 over the course of 3 playthroughs, and I just got cyberpunk and played it for the first time with the release of the 2.0 patch (and the DLC), and I have to say, I'm at around 120 hours and still have plenty left to do and am still having a blast.
I never rush the main story in games though. I want to squeeze every drop of content I can out of my first playthrough, bc I likely won't be doing another for a really long time.
I've been playing for over a hundred hours and still find new things. Don't know what you're talking about being empty.
Meanwhile I've never been able to get farther than 20 hours into Witcher 3 without being bored. Different strokes for different folks.
An opinion, no matter how much you agree with it, will always remain an opinion and will never become a fact.
Something subjective is impossible to be a fact, or it wouldn't be subjective.
Them having an opinion is a fact.
Still one of my top games.
Mods are obligatory though.
I really hope the mods continue to flourish
I read that the company that was supposed to be doing QA testing really fucked them.
oh i bet
Fixing Cyperbunk was probably more important for team morale and keeping employees from exodusing then it was from a sales standpoint.
Has anyone found out why the devs felt bad after the release of their game? Any ideas at all. (Just kidding I pre-ordered that shit like a loser, they earned the morale-melt 100%)
They 100% don't. The management and the publisher on the other hand can die in a fire
I guess they were just following orders
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.
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.