Suhiira;n10029441 said:
I have - it's an MMO, right? Never played it myself, but I'll take a look at the internet system they use.
I have - it's an MMO, right? Never played it myself, but I'll take a look at the internet system they use.
dhaasler;n10028011 said:
While the poster says two sandbox environments, it may change in the final version, depending on the reason why the partitioning was originally intended. I wonder if the Velen/Novigrad hub in The Witcher 3 was planned to be two separate (possibly larger) areas at first, like shown on the world map, but they were merged later.
When you come down to it, it's not really a matter of how many loading screens one comes across in a game but how often one must cross from one zone to another.
If you get a mission from NPC 'A' in a shop and have to zone outside to speak to someone just outside the door, then back, six times as you relay messages back-an-forth that's not really the games fault for having zones, but the game developer/quest designers fault for being an idiot.
If you get a mission from NPC 'A' in a shop and have to zone outside to speak to someone just outside the door, then back, six times as you relay messages back-an-forth that's not really the games fault for having zones, but the game developer/quest designers fault for being an idiot.
Just saw something I'd never seen before ... and I like it.
Loading screens are voiced game/world lore, and not just a few pieces but multiple ones so you rarely see/hear the same one twice. You also are given the option to "kill" the lore VO once the actual loading is complete if you don't care about the games lore.
Loading screens are voiced game/world lore, and not just a few pieces but multiple ones so you rarely see/hear the same one twice. You also are given the option to "kill" the lore VO once the actual loading is complete if you don't care about the games lore.
Suhiira;n10325972 said:
Well, natural forests, sure. I wouldn't be at all surprised to see synthetic trees dotted throughout the city. Pretty sure humanity will have figured out how to make convincing ones by 2077, and they look pretty, so there's always that incentive to do so.
Snowflakez;n10326652 said:
If humans can live in an environment for an extended period of time without special protection, one would think at least some kinds of plants (even if not necessarily trees) would survive, too. I would hope all the environment in the game will not be like in Fallout games where everything is dead and brown or grey. But I do recall maps of Night City, even posted in this thread, where there is at least one large park. So it would either be synthetic plants, or their survival would be ensured in some way.
sv3672;n10327572 said:
That's what I thought as well. I could have sworn there was a park somewhere, it wouldn't make sense for nature -- or at least the appearance of nature -- to be totally gone, in my opinion. Humans like nature, despite what they do to it. It's pretty, calming even. Gives us oxygen, too (maybe synthetic trees can't quite do that).
> Hello.
> I don't think there will be a world in which would be similar as The Witcher 2.
> I think in what you refereed partitioned is as what The Witcher 2 feel like when you play it?
> Looks like they will be both right? Since it will have and according to CDPR, a bigger thing that The Witcher 3.
> I could imagine some sectors being huge and so complex, with so many buildings that would give a sense of being both games like W2 & W3. A mix of both.
> You are not wrong, they are going to focus all their potential to this release it on PC first and then after it, will be on consoles.
> They have state that on an interview, they are planing to be like R*, developed first the games for PC and then make it for consoles.
> I don't think there will be a world in which would be similar as The Witcher 2.
> I think in what you refereed partitioned is as what The Witcher 2 feel like when you play it?
> Looks like they will be both right? Since it will have and according to CDPR, a bigger thing that The Witcher 3.
> I could imagine some sectors being huge and so complex, with so many buildings that would give a sense of being both games like W2 & W3. A mix of both.
animalfather;n9889651 said:
> You are not wrong, they are going to focus all their potential to this release it on PC first and then after it, will be on consoles.
> They have state that on an interview, they are planing to be like R*, developed first the games for PC and then make it for consoles.
It depends on what sort of deal they can cut with the console makers.Donum-Dei;n10330312 said:
You KNOW there will be pressure to make it exclusive to one console or the other and reduce the games graphics and frame rate so the console version looks as good as the PC one. That's SOP. Fortunately CDPR has become big, and well known enough they don't have to cut these sorts of deals just to get access to the console market.
Suhiira;n10330342 said:
Yeah, there's absolutely zero chance they cut a deal like that. It would go against everything that they stand for as a company.
I mean, I'm not saying console manufactuers won't try - heck, they probably already have. But CDPR likely won't accept it.
As far as what you said, Donum-Dei , I too hope it's developed with PC in mind first. I'm OK with a console-ish interface, as long as its workable, and patched to be more PC-centric later (As they did with TW3), but performance/poor optimization because of consoles is unacceptable to me.
Not a "PC MASTUR RAEC" thing, I'm just tired of getting the crap end of the stick when it comes to game performance. Dishonored 2, Wolfenstein II, the list goes on...
Snowflakez;n10330442 said:
I'm sure it will likely go in line with how they developed Witcher3 if anything. While I don't think they will focus on making the ultimate PC game first, and then downgraded versions for consoles, that would never work. I'd much expect them to be developing the game all at once, that best benefits all platforms the best it can without having to making sacrifices to any version.
While consoles may hold back what a high end PC game could ultimately be, but without consoles, NO Cyberpunk. I'm sure the game won't disappoint no matter what platform it's being played on.
I expect them to fully build the game to be as compatible to the platform they're being played on, that includes interfaces, controls, and general options. There's no reason the game should be built for simply one platform layout and converted over to another, if they planned on a multiplatform release, I'm sure the game development will follow that.
My hopes as well.BeastModeIron;n10330812 said:
But we know there will be pressure from the console makers, there's too much potential profit.
In the past CDPR has managed to resist, or weather, lawsuits and such from publishers and others (look into their corporate history sometime). No reason to think they won't do so again.
Do I expect CP2077 to take full advantage of what a top-of-the-line PC could do?
No.
That would be foolish, most PC users don't own one that good. It'll be made for mid-range to perhaps slightly above.
Suhiira;n10331022 said:
Yeah, this is how most devs handle it. I don't even have a top-of-the-line PC, so I woudn't want that, either.
I mean, PC players already got extra high end options (Hairworks being one) if their system could handle it, so I have no reason to think 2077 won't be similar. I'm not concerned about it. I'm confident that when I upgrade (hopefully some time next month) I'll be able to take advantage of some of those extra features when the game comes out.