The game seem very ambitious

+
Duke Nukem Forever and no man's sky had a very simple problem and that was too much ambition which leaded the game to become crap. "Cd projekt red" is known for its witcher game which are amazing but Cyberpunk 2077 feel like a totally new thing that they are trying and that scares me.

Don't get me wrong I saw the message that was on top saying: "work in progress - does not represent the final look of the game" .When game developers make a game that seem very ambitious 2 thing could happen
1. Turns out that it's shit
2. It gets cancelled

Let's talk about the number one:
The game showed us that their will be plenty of AI, plenty of guns, and a goddam sexy car that we will be able to drive. That doesn't scare me because that was done before. But I feel that world will be like the Batman games (not the Batman Arkham asylum's) big but not enough stuff to do. Also the fps rate, in the gameplay CD projekt red said :"their will be no loading screen" but their is so much shit happening how are you guys going to be able to have a stable 60 fps with that many AI, and a huge map?!! (All of this are not what scares me to the most, it the number 2)

And now number two:
Prey 2, not the one we had this year but the one that was cancelled at 5% from its end. I would really hate to see that game being cancelled, I do not care if you guys delay the game a hundred of times *cough*the division*cough*. I, like all your other fans want to hold a copy of the game in our hands but that can't happen if the game gets cancelled. And Cyberpunk 2077 feel like it is one of those projects that will not see the light.


For my conclusion
The game looks fantastic and all that I am asking is that you guys don't become Activision with their sexy gameplay and trailer but with the game only ending looking like shit. And also that you guys don't cancel the game.

Cordially
Gabritronic

Also please add cyberdogs.
 
I feel your pain, the video game industry has been flooded with let downs and disappointments for quite awhile but this time I think it's fairly safe to say that if you're on board with what you've seen so far, you're gonna love it when it's in your hands. Obviously there are no guarantees but that's my feeling and when it comes to gamers they don't get much more jaded than myself lol.
 
Honestly, I'm not that worried. They've barely showed any of the game's actual systems, which mean it's VERY much subject to change.

I know, you saw the 48 minutes and wonder "what the heck are you talking about? they showed so much gameplay!"

Well, sure. They showed shooting and... dialogue. That was literally about it. lots of fun little hints we picked up, sure, but we don't know anything about how the RPG systems will work, we don't know the true scale of the city, and we don't know how many buildings will be enterable.

So... Being that we don't know this stuff, we can't be disappointed about how ambitious they may or may not be. Yet.
 
Honestly, I'm not that worried. They've barely showed any of the game's actual systems, which mean it's VERY much subject to change.
Still, what they showed can give a reason to be concerned. I mean, when I saw it I thought "it looks like it's a Deus Ex". But Deus Ex had flaws and everything in the demo seems to confirm that CP77 is going exactly the same way. Which means that I will most likely ditch Solo as an option entirely. Combat is just not very interesting if it's going to be so arcadey, instead of being tactical.
 
Last edited:
Still, what they showed can give a reason to be concerned. I mean, when I saw it I thought "it looks like it's a Deus Ex". But Deus Ex had flaws and everything in the demo seems to confirm that CP77 is going exactly the same way. Which means that I will most likely ditch Solo as an option entirely. Combat is just not very interesting if it's going to be so arcadey, instead of being tactical.
I keep seeing the word tactical come up. Does everyone want their games to be like Rainbow Six: Siege now? While it was a good game, I don't think every big game should follow what they did.

The game is still very much deep in development. Combat still needs a lot of work, particularly the gunplay, imo. They'll fine-tune it and update us on progress. I'm just waiting for the next demo that they show us.
 
I keep seeing the word tactical come up. Does everyone want their games to be like Rainbow Six: Siege now? While it was a good game, I don't think every big game should follow what they did.
1) Rainbow Six: Siege isn't as tactical as many people think it is. The way you aim (bullets coming from the scope, rather than from your gun), the rapid movement not affecting your aim whatsoever... I could go on and on. Suffice to say I am looking forward to see Ready Or Not in action. Escape From Tarkov looks very interesting too.

2) Maybe not every game should be tactical, but given that CP77 is based on an RPG system that's supposed to make combat lethal I would expect combat being less like The Division. What I saw in the gameplay is exactly why I agree with people saying it's "a shooter". Because it is. It doesn't feel tactical in any shape or form. It doesn't make you think twice about going into combat or be very careful while in it.

I will say more and question how the game is "very ambitious". It doesn't really seem to be to me.
 
1) Rainbow Six: Siege isn't as tactical as many people think it is. The way you aim (bullets coming from the scope, rather than from your gun), the rapid movement not affecting your aim whatsoever... I could go on and on. Suffice to say I am looking forward to see Ready Or Not in action. Escape From Tarkov looks very interesting too.
The lean function was pretty nice. I know people are asking for that here. I wouldn't mind it.

2) Maybe not every game should be tactical, but given that CP77 is based on an RPG system that's supposed to make combat lethal I would expect combat being less like The Division. What I saw in the gameplay is exactly why I agree with people saying it's "a shooter". Because it is. It doesn't feel tactical in any shape or form. It doesn't make you think twice about going into combat or be very careful while in it.

I will say more and question how the game is "very ambitious". It doesn't really seem to be to me.
I'm going to have to disagree on some points here. The combat very much reminded me of Mirror's Edge. I think they're trying to take a more fluid approach to it, which I personally like. You have to think on where to go in order to avoid getting hit, and that's where the tactical feel of it comes from.

That being said, I agree that it should feel a bit more lethal. Making headshots a one-shot kill is a good start.

It definitely needs improvement, but I'm remaining optimistic about it.
 
The lean function was pretty nice. I know people are asking for that here. I wouldn't mind it.
Ironically enough there IS the lean function in the game already. I guess it wasn't shown enough, between slowing/stopping time and (literally) dodging bullets... Which, somewhat, proves my point about how the game feels. Judging from the demo at least. Maybe it controls differently than it looks. Especially if you don't have access to all these cool tricks they showed off for show purposes.
 
Ironically enough there IS the lean function in the game already. I guess it wasn't shown enough, between slowing/stopping time and (literally) dodging bullets... Which, somewhat, proves my point about how the game feels. Judging from the demo at least. Maybe it controls differently than it looks. Especially if you don't have access to all these cool tricks they showed off for show purposes.
It probably needs to be polished up some more is my guess.

The slowing time and dodging bullets seems to be their equivalent of potions from TW3, which I don't have a problem with. The point of potions were to help you defeat tough monsters in combat. I'd imagine they're going in a similar route for Cyberpunk.
 
I understand what you mean by them getting ambitious, but we must also keep ourselves in check. CD Projekt has not made many promises (mechanics wise), and most of what I read about this game is either gossip or wishful thinking about the direction they should take.

I too constantly need to remind myself that this is not Cyberpunk 2020 made into computer game (as in, in it's entirety); It's a role playing game with a definite and (somewhat) closed story to tell, based on the CP2020 universe. So when they show me a combat like that seen in the demo, it bothers me not that it lacks the lethality of CP2020, for it's not something I (or anyone?) should expect simply because is part of the original universe.
 
The two games you mentioned didn't have to much ambition, they had to much hype around them which led to disappointments. The hype was totally fan-made.

I may be negative but I always await new things with low expectations. In case I'm right, I'm right. In case I'm wrong I can only be happily surprised. I'm the one waving to all the fools on the Hype train as they leave the station.
 
Nothing wrong with being ambitious. It can lead to disappoinment when:

- A developer bites of more than he can chew and makes promises they can't deliver on.

- When the expectations of the playerbase doesn't match with what is actually offered.

Its too early in development to draw conclusions on the first one. Most of the promises where very general, or can' t be written of from just the demo. Although I do hope to see more RPG combat instead of standard twitchy, shooty combat soon.

Second can be prevented by releasing just enough info to keep the fanbase from getting the wrong ideas. Just look at the perspective debate and leave it at that.

I think CDPR still has enough time to prove it can keep its promises.
 
I just hope for a more lethal combat on both sides (me and enemy) at least on highest difficulty, unless there is some full body armor that can explain gaining more bullets. And force the player to make use of all the additional gear to make his way through. In Witcher we had potions, oils and so on but a player who got familiar with sword fights could easily go through without using them most of the time.
 
As of what I saw in the gameplay demo, I fell in love with it!
so I know that from here and out it only be a better game.
and just thinking of that makes me happy :)
 
I liked pretty much everything in the gameplay trailer except difficulty. Of course every trailer is made look easy to attract more players? But in my case i grew bored for example on witcher 3 because nothing really felt challenging after learning the basics. I still have high hopes for this game.
 
I politely disagree that this game seems ambitious. So far all the decisions made, and what I've seen instead look very much like a 'playing it safe' and 'sticking to mainstream market appeal' type of game to me. I've yet to see anything groundbreaking.
 
Indeed, while the game is very ambitious, it is still way less ambitious that what I though when I sam that Mike Pondsmith was working on it, as I though that even if the game would not have the same reactivity as a real GM would, it would have every basics from Cyberpunk 2020.
But important parts of the game are missing (roles, stats, etc...).
 
I'm honestly not the least bit worried about it. If it was some other big name mainstream and overhyped studio *cough*Ubisoft*cough* than there would be some concern. There are a couple of studios which would make me hesitant about the final result, but CDPR isn't one of them.

They have shown time and time again they are very talented team. The fact that they don't want to be rushed doesn't make me concerned that this might be cancelled, it leads me to believe this is the team exhibiting their perfectionist side wanting to ensure the best quality product they are capable of making.

On a side note Prey 2 wasn't cancelled by the development team. That was an executive decision made by the backer and distributor, Bethesda. Since CDPR develops and distributes their own titles you don't need to worry about a third party interfering or pulling the rug out from underneath them, something would seriously have to go wrong with production in order for CDPR to cancel this title.

This is when the fans just need to have a little faith. I know they can do it so I'm content on letting them as having as much time they feel they need to smooth out the nuances.
 
Indeed, while the game is very ambitious, it is still way less ambitious that what I though when I sam that Mike Pondsmith was working on it, as I though that even if the game would not have the same reactivity as a real GM would, it would have every basics from Cyberpunk 2020.
But important parts of the game are missing (roles, stats, etc...).
CDPR had issues working on CP77 as well as some inner personnel problem (they lost Lead Level Designer, Senior Gameplay Producer, Project Manager and Senior Art Producer, and these are only the most notable roles). In fact, some people who were supposed to work on CP77 never really worked on it and concepts of how the game was supposed to work were changed several times.

I wouldn't be surprised if these issues made them completely re-orient their approach to how they want to make the game and the real work on it started somewhere around 2017, with a completely different concept, which would explain the lack of roles - and other things - that were promised back at Summer Conference in 2012.
 
Top Bottom