Well, as a dyed in the wool PC gamer [1986 Commodore 64 outputted to my CRT TV ] I'm not very objective on PC vs Console issues, but I'd love to see PC come back to the gaming fore; though I don't expect it to. A number of good/great points made here r.e. developing a game for obsolete/rapidly obsolescent hardware configs (older consoles); I don't think there's anything substantive I can add.
One complicating factor, not mentioned yet, for Devs; is the human tendency, born of necessity at times, that causes such a wide age range of tech to exist. Many hang onto obviously obsolete tech (know anyone who's still using XP or VISTA?); try to push it to do things it was never designed for; then aren't pleased with the result. Not much a Dev can do about that. I certainly agree "The Dev" does bear some responsiblity if they've (during development) encouraged the idea their product is going to scale well for both cutting edge tech and tech that's well past it's prime.
They should made a DEMO/Early Access build before the release.
It's not that hard, they could make it a small region so we could explore the mechanics, NPCs, available functions and make suggestions. Now we are facing a painful progress. I am not sure how much honest they are right now..i don't know..
It sucks for people who play on the last gen of consoles. But even when looking at the min specs for PC it has ssd recommended in parentheses. A lot of problems for console has to do with pop in and loading, and I think this could be one of the reasons. No ssd. I'm just hoping they can find some way to make it better optimized for console.
Even if the bugs will be eventually fixed there is a core problem and that is the deceptive advertisement that was done about this game all this open world activities that we know that were a lie. The whole mantra "Is an Rpg first and foremost." when it proved to be an open world fps with a branching narrative and little else. Now even if bug fix and optimizations issue are adressed we have a title that can be liked however it try to hard to please different tastes and as result you have something that taste like nothing.
The game has some fantastic visual beautiful artstyle weird narration but some moments are well written but the whole game and i am not telling this because of the frame issue and bugs felt like it was super rushed.
Yes because you have this big open world where you can do nothing in you may see people vending stuff in the street and you can't even interact with them.
V is not your character nor you is a premade entity that you can customize to a degree. The dialogues choice are minimal if not inrelevant. Skill checks during dialogues are super rare. The story has a super weird pacing at the point it felt like 60% of the content was cut away.
This game is not a flawed gem. New Vegas was. That despite was filled with bugs and crashed people love it at the point they are urging Bethesda to have a New Vegas approach in the new fallout. This game is just an overexpensive dull mediocre game that does not even justify a full price.
Heck i played the early access of Bg3 and in 20 minute of it i felt a lot more roleplay elements than in hours of cyberpunk 2077.
I don't know where this game will go but i have to say i am very surprised i had not high hopes for this game but Cd Projekt managed to beat my expectations. ((In a negative way))
I hope they will be more humble in the future and they will return to make nice Action Rpgs.
I know i am being harsh. But i am being harsh because i care about cd projekt red. And thise whole marketing with celebrities influencers and youtubers with deiciving informations and thing deliberately been hidden is not the cd projekt red i loved across the years.
I believe games have to be made the way Diablo 2 and Age of Empires 2 or The witcher I were made:
no hypes, no giant conferences before release, no insane budgets , more can be less sometimes. Great budgets and mighty investors might bite your in the asss in fact. Just invest talent and soul energy and have fun and the game would be great
I've noticed that games I waited for years more and more often turn out to be boring and/or bad. While games I've never heard of due to lack of massive marketing campaigns surprise me pleasantly.
I play on PC so things are fine for me performance wise, but saw that the console releases have some issues.
So was wondering, maybe CDPR should have focused on releasing Cyberpunk for PC first, maybe together with the next gen version as well. But maybe having spend more time on polishing these versions and getting rid of bugs etc. And then afterwards have announced that they would release on consoles later, giving them more time to optimize it for them particular, so they would get a good or better experience as well?
I know it's about sales numbers, which are impressive, but still I have a feeling that it might have been a better choice, because that way they would probably not get as many reports of bugs and bad feedback.
Because as with most AAA games that are released today, it seems to be the norm that they come with a lot of bugs in them, and often its bugs that these companies must have known about before hand, floating weapons, T poses enemies etc. We saw it in Fallout 76, Avengers and so on as well. And my impression from gamers in general, is that we are starting to get really fed up with it.
So maybe it's time for these companies to start to reinventing how they release games so they are better at releasing them in a good state.
Let's imagine that CDPR had said that Cyberpunk would be released for PC the 10th december and consoles in about 6 month or so?
The gaming industry needs to be regulated... Just like SOX happened after Enron, the gaming industry needs government and federal level intervention and auditting.. just like how even our food gets inspected by FDA and has to have nutritional value labels that are factual and easy to read, there has to be some regulation and standards so that when a developer of a game says its a "minimum recommendation" or plays at this resolution there has to be a standard so that the label cannot be misused.... this CP2077 fiasco with the base and older gen consoles is case in point... if the government had auditted CDPR this never would have allowed to happen...
Oh HELL NO! No good will come from that. Open Market will "punish" CDPR as needed. Public trust is very low for them now, other gaming companies have gone the greed route and well either suffered in the bottom line or has had to be purchased by another company.
I actually think CDPR did the gaming industry a favor... It has been well published the money that can be made making video games. MIllions and millions of $$, and where there is money to be made companies will come. I can see other NEW video gaming studios forming just to get a piece of the pie. The Question is will these companies try to make a name for themselves or just try to make some money.
I've noticed that games I waited for years more and more often turn out to be boring and/or bad. While games I've never heard of due to lack of massive marketing campaigns surprise me pleasantly.
Games are obviously very difficult to make, but still Cyberpunk as most other games doesn't invent the wheel in regards to gameplay possibilities. You can drive, shoot, stealth etc. as with more or less any other type of game in the genre. It does add the dynamic dialogs, and the no loading screen, which is absolutely amazing and should be the standard for all games
But most of the stuff is pretty standard, so you would think that these companies by now had pretty much nailed the basics. Like no flying weapons and mobile phones etc. How to handle T-poses etc. I played GTA 5 a bit before Cyberpunk and it only took me an hour before I was on a flying bicycle. At least to me, it just seems weird why these types of issues keep appearing in games time after time. I could imagine the new stuff, like no loading screens, the dynamic dialogs causing a lot of issues, as well as performance. But its not really what bugs the games in my experience at least.
The no loading have worked flawless, the dialog besides some minor issues, is pretty much perfect. Its the standard issues like wrong animations, floating items, AI going a bit nuts once in awhile etc. And I can understand the AI, because that will probably need some adjustments from game to game.
Dialogue is pretty much perfect:
Despite the game makes the player chose 2 dialogues most of the time and many times even one single answer to be given at the point i wonder why to put it as selectable anyway.
Games are obviously very difficult to make, but still Cyberpunk as most other games doesn't invent the wheel in regards to gameplay possibilities. You can drive, shoot, stealth etc. as with more or less any other type of game in the genre.
Let me tell you this: in the new Deus Ex games stealth is so much better than in CP2077 that they can't even be compared on any level. It's so bad in CP that I doubt it can be fixed whatsoever, even in a year.
Somehow CDPR did manage to reinvent a wheel, ie come up with stealth so terrible that even in TW2 intro it was better.
I think the biggest issue is within the Gaming Industry itself. Particularly, in the past decade, companies like EA, Bethesda, and Ubisoft have consistently produced games which were not QA'd to the standard that consumers would reasonably expect. In essence, it has become "normal" for us to expect half-finished, unpolished products on release day.
In my opinion, that is entirely unacceptable. The industry needs stricter regulation in regards to advertising, marketing, transparency, and quality control. Kind of like an FDA but for video games. Bear in mind, that the organization doesn't need to be government run, per say but at the very least a neutral third party.
Couldn't help but focus my post on the thread title itself, so my post will revolve around that, if you may forgive that approach. Let us take a step into the future and ponder how games development itself could be.
A new way of making AAA games would mean new technology and approaches. You can't change a running system, a lot is simply dependent on time windows and money and the realistic constraints (development taking time with finite resources and an eventual delivery date).
Imagine in the moderate future, advanced technology aiding you in game development rapidly. Maybe even with AI support. A world where you don't need to develop such major titles over several years and still be unable to finish all original ideas (different apartments, way back years ago, possibly pickable classes and factions or jobs, etc) due to the aforementioned constraints and priorities, because development itself becomes faster and easier.
I see issues in both the "mainstream industry" and also more independent indie developers. Notable titles often get changed scopes and some downgraded package because you eventually have to deliver as the market or investors demand it, or simply because you cannot afford to develop a title longer. Some titles outright fail and never see the light of day.
Then, you get indie developers who don't have the same financial security. Some fail, some make it but their scope remains limited as they lack the bigger resources. And then there is crowd-funded mega projects like Star Citizen. Star Citizen is, depending on how you look at it, both a bad and yet also good example.
You're not subject to certain investors as far as I understand how it works - or not so much like in the big industry. That's where such more independent developers or studios pride themselves - yet, a huge mammoth project takes time. Star Citizen will easily see the next decade in continued development until it is probably somewhat or relatively near where it was pitched to be, without being finished for good.
Long story short, no matter the route or approach and depending on project size, you are always subject to higher powers and limitations. Money, time, luck, scope, people to work with, experience, skill, and so much more. Some of that, you cannot simply wash away or change radically: How "the system" works.
But I feel you can make a lot along the way easier with ground breaking technology aids, like AI. Where games can be made or tweaked faster, thus, more content can be offered. Where a lot of the work doesn't become menial or hands-on tasking and coding, but can shift to a creative process as technology takes the parts that take time and prone to mistakes in coding or fine-tuning and does the job in almost no time. The coder becomes the artist who simply oversees and shapes the process as needed by the creative process or director.
These are the games and virtual (vast) worlds I look forward to and it should still be within my time frame on this earth. Maybe at the end of this decade, maybe in the 30s, 40s.
It's quite exciting to think what could be around the corner.
But let's stop dreaming and look at the near future: Curious to see what they will make with DLC and the next Cyberpunk game.
I think the biggest issue is within the Gaming Industry itself. Particularly, in the past decade, companies like EA, Bethesda, and Ubisoft have consistently produced games which were not QA'd to the standard that consumers would reasonably expect. In essence, it has become "normal" for us to expect half-finished, unpolished products on release day.
In my opinion, that is entirely unacceptable. The industry needs stricter regulation in regards to advertising, marketing, transparency, and quality control. Kind of like an FDA but for video games. Bear in mind, that the organization doesn't need to be government run, per say but at the very least a neutral third party.
Agree, to me it seems like this whole "buy early access games" have somewhat been adopted by the big studios without actually promoting it as such. But rather they release games in fairly unfinished states as if they were. Again, some of the bugs these games are released with, is simply impossible for the developers to not be aware of, and to be precise, the management, to not be aware of, as they are the once deciding to release the games in these stages.
And it seems like in the game industry, they have gotten really used to getting away with this. Hardly any other business this would be acceptable. Imagine buying a car and the doors falling off the moment you close them a bit to hard.
A new way of making AAA games would mean new technology and approaches. You can't change a running system, a lot is simply dependent on time windows and money and the realistic constraints (development taking time with finite resources and an eventual delivery date).
I think it's a rough one, because when I look at it. I think it's absolutely epic that you can choose your characters, whether its female or male, the stats etc. I prefer that over that of the Witcher, where you have to play a character that is designed for you. Because if you don't like the character the experience will simply fail and to me this is a crucial part of a roleplaying game.
But if you do it like that, you potentially have to make a lot more work, especially in the dialogs.
And then you have all the other things. Players expect these games to deliver on all fronts. Stealth has to be perfect, AI, Story, Cars, shooting mechanics etc. If you couldn't stealth at all in Cyberpunk, people would complain about that, if you can't choose to be a female, people complain. And if you can't do this or that, then the game doesn't have enough features. There is no way that game studios can meet all these demands, to the degree that people expect.
And it must be very frustrating for them as well.
But what I think Cyberpunk could or should do, because in my opinion they have a very strong foundation here. Despite all the issues, I still think it is one hell of a good game, and even though I personally have a lot of changes that I would like to see. It really doesn't change my opinion of the game and would still rate it 9/10 or 10/10. Obviously I don't like the poor release on the console, that surely should be noted as bad. But when that it is said. The possibilities to keep expanding this game and adding content and features could make it the absolute best RPG to date.
So maybe the trick is to release games in stages over a longer period of time, rather than releasing them as huge complete games all in one go, they include players in the development and are completely honest about this, so sort of like an early access game, but in a much more functional state.
First they would release a base game, where you have all the basic functionalities and a main story or maybe just part of it, as a testing ground etc. But they put all effort into making sure that these things are working without bugs etc. and really flesh out the mechanics, so they have a strong foundation for expanding it. And at this point players will give them feedback. And then over the period of let's say the 8 years that it have taken CDPR to make Cyberpunk, they release content on a regular basis, which have be well tested before going live and people can focus on giving them feedback on these things.
So basically a game like Cyberpunk would be released more as a sandbox game or testing version in the beginning and over time turn into a complete game.
Maybe that would work. It seems to have worked well for games like 7 days to die, No man sky, despite the bad release they had, which were obviously because they promised to much. But had they been honest about their vision for the game and what they were aiming for in the future, I think they could have completely avoided the backlash etc.
Maybe even release them as free version at first, which would allow them to easily drop the development early on, if it doesn't fit with the customers and they wouldn't be pissed, because they didn't have to pay for it. But at some point when the feel that now the content, features and functionalities are in place, they can close this early access and people can buy the full game with all the features, the real stories etc. so there would be some benefits of doing it like this I think.
Well, there's definitely a few things to learn from CP and I wanted to point out, CDPR isn't a unique case, this game release is a good showcase of the game's industry's problem at the moment.
I mean, CP is what strike people the most right now because it's what we're playing but games plagued by glitches are a thing since a very long time (remember Skyrim when it came out? RDR2? Fallout76...I mean, how can you forget Fallout76...).
The biggest lesson, imo, being, as I said on another topic, game developpers need to be less (or not) tied to time constraint while making video games...That also require an effort from us as players btw. People need to be more patient and understand that making a video game takes time (one of the reason why CP came out too early is partly because people were pushing them).
Then, maybe it's time to start thinking outside the box for certain things.
Video games becomes more ambitious, more complicated to make.
Maybe think about making alliances between companies, for example. I don't know if that would be possible, it's just a though and I think they need to poke their nose in that kind of direction if they want to make massive projects like CP faster.
And then you have all the other things. Players expect these games to deliver on all fronts. Stealth has to be perfect, AI, Story, Cars, shooting mechanics etc. If you couldn't stealth at all in Cyberpunk, people would complain about that, if you can't choose to be a female, people complain. And if you can't do this or that, then the game doesn't have enough features. There is no way that game studios can meet all these demands, to the degree that people expect.
That's correct and in fact, I think it's a mistake CDPR made.
If you try to make everyone happy you end up upsetting everyone because it's realistically impossible to deliver in every department.
They should have chosen a line and be clear about it when they teased the game. Not go "You'll be able to do everything" but be clear about the possibilities and the limitations of the game. A good part of people's reaction to CP is due to overly high expectations that were impossible to fulfill.
But what I think Cyberpunk could or should do, because in my opinion they have a very strong foundation here. Despite all the issues, I still think it is one hell of a good game, and even though I personally have a lot of changes that I would like to see. It really doesn't change my opinion of the game and would still rate it 9/10 or 10/10. Obviously I don't like the poor release on the console, that surely should be noted as bad. But when that it is said. The possibilities to keep expanding this game and adding content and features could make it the absolute best RPG to date.
I absolutely agree with that and this is, in fact, the most frustrating part about CP.
If the game were utterly bad I would have not minded. Okay, it's awful, just give me a refund and be done with it.
But it's not the case with CP, the game is amazing, I'm having a lot of fun playing it but it's soooooo unfinished.
I think it's time for people to chill out and recognize that it's not the end of the world if a videogame isn't perfect, and yes, 2077 isn't perfect, but it definitely has a great base to build upon that, with tweaks here and there, could eventually be an even better game. It would be a shame if this game never released because someone, somewhere, had problems with playing it. I understand the frustration, maybe CDPR bit off more than they could chew by trying to get this game to run on last gen hardware, but all the outrage and smash the system style mentality that we're getting is just silly.
] I'm not very objective on PC vs Console issues, but I'd love to see PC come back to the gaming fore; though I don't expect it to. A number of good/great points made here r.e. developing a game for obsolete/rapidly obsolescent hardware configs (older consoles); I don't think there's anything substantive I can add.
