One of devs asked about NPC system, how it will work, said it will be similar to Witcher 3, just one/two answers from them - it was obvious it will be not too interactive (and for me it's fine). This system is really promising, because it's very flexible (density options), but they need to polish it. They really wanted to fill city with NPCs like IRL and they managed to do it.
There's video, there are corrections to Gamestar article posted by staff here I linked. I don't think there's much left to discuss what was promised, what was wished is different thing.
There's pretty good recent discussion how to improve NPC traffic in Suggestions forum. Wish people would post also Police / MaxTac related stuff there. Have few ideas myself but I wait for 1.2 to cover several things at once and for simply due practical reasons. I see very little point in speculating about game balance before certain perks and certain cyberware are fixed and I hope 1.2 will address at least some of those.
Wait, where did Liu speak about that NPC will have different reaction towards you depending on what actions you have done?
All i read is about police system, that police will come or not come depending on where you are.
Also street cred, when you have high some people react to you differently.
Did you make the rest up?
So you feel that devs can't balance the game by adjusting some features? Well, it doesn't work that way, there is a concept and after tests it shows if it works or not. Monowire hacking would limit hacking greatly so they went for using eyes instead, it's matter of balance and devs choice, it's not a game created by community which would be a total mess anyway.
Do you have any examples of such behavior?
As for the rest of your questions... I have already answered them in my previous posts in this thread.
I can agree on her position that the devs intended what they said to be in the game. But got screwed. Except in one interview. Completing the game without doing the main story. That would require a massive rewrite to remove Alt and have the secret ending be accessible at any point after act 2. And would basically make the forced V can't be fully saved look worse. Unless they also intended all this custom story line to include a 100% chance of saving V. It's still also unacceptable to do CGI animations of things that DO NOT happen in game. T-Bug does not hack V to defend Dex. This is total bull and they know it. You want this moment. Than do a CGI scene of Sasqatch hacking V. That DOES happen in the game.
"Product may vary" is always the same legal thing to defend changes. But there's a point where it becomes worse than the preview shows. CP crossed this line.
I'm fine with delays. CDPR did the unacceptable. Delaying it multiple times at the last minute. You delay it early on for a half year, a year. Than give a solid date. Not what they did. Just give yourself a buffer. Because I doubt anyone would complain that a company moves up the release date out of nowhere.
"Product may vary" is always the same legal thing to defend changes. But there's a point where it becomes worse than the preview shows. CP crossed this line.
I'm fine with delays. CDPR did the unacceptable. Delaying it multiple times at the last minute. You delay it early on for a half year, a year. Than give a solid date. Not what they did. Just give yourself a buffer. Because I doubt anyone would complain that a company moves up the release date out of nowhere.
Last edited:
I'll give her that, she's brave for taking a reasonable stance in all of this.
I respect that a lot.
Aw man. Gutted.
I think I missed the point of this thread's OP.
I was originally buzzing with cyberpunk and enjoyed the game immensely. Once I managed to get hold of a cheap series S console the crashes became tolerable and the rest I could deal with.
Now I've been back and watched the trailers and checked out the interviews etc I'm really wishing we could have played that version of cp2077!
That would have been amazing.
Kinda relieved I didn't follow the hype and marketing now though, as I could have ended up as disappointed as the rest of you guys.
Condolences BTW.
As a side note, I did try - during the second playthrough - to get some of the branching storyline happening, by doing stuff in a different order. I just ran into the problem of enemy scaling, being in the wrong areas and having one sided fights. Back then though I didn't know enough about the game to realise the linearity of the main story.
I mean afterwards, I tried to Google it to get the hang of the choices but 9 times out of ten it came up as : "... Makes no difference to the outcome" so yeah definitely a certain amount of linear storyline. Side quests have a flexibility to them, and a couple of choices have an effect on the outcome, but nothing like I first imagined.
Saying that though, I still thoroughly enjoyed it and look forward to any additional content.
My experience of the game actually lined up nicely with my expectations - I was hoping for a relatively immersive FPS with cyberpunk flavour and decent gun mechanics / combat. I mean, the one trailer I did see honestly gave me that impression.
So again, yeah - I'm glad I didn't follow the hype! Otherwise my cp2077 experience might have been quite different.
I think I missed the point of this thread's OP.
I was originally buzzing with cyberpunk and enjoyed the game immensely. Once I managed to get hold of a cheap series S console the crashes became tolerable and the rest I could deal with.
Now I've been back and watched the trailers and checked out the interviews etc I'm really wishing we could have played that version of cp2077!
That would have been amazing.
Kinda relieved I didn't follow the hype and marketing now though, as I could have ended up as disappointed as the rest of you guys.
Condolences BTW.
As a side note, I did try - during the second playthrough - to get some of the branching storyline happening, by doing stuff in a different order. I just ran into the problem of enemy scaling, being in the wrong areas and having one sided fights. Back then though I didn't know enough about the game to realise the linearity of the main story.
I mean afterwards, I tried to Google it to get the hang of the choices but 9 times out of ten it came up as : "... Makes no difference to the outcome" so yeah definitely a certain amount of linear storyline. Side quests have a flexibility to them, and a couple of choices have an effect on the outcome, but nothing like I first imagined.
Saying that though, I still thoroughly enjoyed it and look forward to any additional content.
My experience of the game actually lined up nicely with my expectations - I was hoping for a relatively immersive FPS with cyberpunk flavour and decent gun mechanics / combat. I mean, the one trailer I did see honestly gave me that impression.
So again, yeah - I'm glad I didn't follow the hype! Otherwise my cp2077 experience might have been quite different.
Yeah, well, she's confusing two things. Demo is not a preview build. Demo is supposed to be a piece of the game. Not a preview, not a concept, an actual piece of game, so demo, by it's definition, can't be fake. If it's fake, then it's not a demo. This is exactly why people have problem with what was presented in 2018 - it was a preview, yet they called it a demo, completely changing the context of what was shown.
To better outline differences between demo and preview consider this - Game of Thrones TV series have a never aired pilot episode, which had a completely different cast for some of the characters like Daenerys and Catelyn Stark, George R.R. Martin had a cameo in it, shots were made in different locations. This was a preview. Now the demo would be, if we would take first 10 minutes of the first episode and post it on YouTube for people to make their minds if they want to pay for HBO GO and watch the rest of the series.
To also point out the 2018 videos had a disclaimer right at the top that clearly states - "WORK IN PROGRESS - DOES NOT REPRESENT THE FINAL LOOK OF THE GAME"
It actually doesn't really help in anything. Demo, as it should be a part of the game, even with such a disclaimer, would mean that what we are seeing is correctly implemented and working within the game, so it creates the notion that though things can change, those changes shouldn't be to drastic. If they were upfront about those videos being just a previews with such a disclaimer, it would have been pretty obvious that what we are watching is just a concept of what they want in the game, not what already is in it. As I said, calling it a demo completely changed the context of what was shown.
That's not what she's saying. All games in preview states are faked. That Horizon Zero Dawn preview at E3 we saw, faked, God of War, faked, everything you see is faked because it's tailored to show only what the devs want you to see. The entirety of the game isn't even close to being finished when you see those previews.
Calling those previews or demos "fake" is an attempt to stir negative emotions in the audience. If I remember correctly, it was Jason Schreier that was first to call the 2018 preview a "fake" demo/preview in one of his latest articles.
Which is funny, because such a seasoned journalist should know very well how those previews/tradeshow demos are made. And that they are called "vertical slices" for a reason.
Weird.
Which is funny, because such a seasoned journalist should know very well how those previews/tradeshow demos are made. And that they are called "vertical slices" for a reason.
Weird.
Bioshock Infinite 10-minute demo from 2010:
All "fake", assembled to represent ideas and features, not actual scenes that can be found in the game. It was still called "demo" 11 years ago.
All "fake", assembled to represent ideas and features, not actual scenes that can be found in the game. It was still called "demo" 11 years ago.
I'm not actually calling them fake, I'm just saying if you wanna call that fake you have to call every preview faked. Even though the intention is not to lie nor mislead the consumer.
Lots of things have this warning. But there's a point where downgrading the game or even a product is unacceptable. Example of this being okay: Jackie cut from the Stout mission covering your back. Mission and branching options are still retained. Example of bad: character creator is more simplistic to games made a decade ago.
Sure, I wasn't calling you out in any way and I agree with what you say.
So I'll chime in here. Yes the 2019 demo was accurate. Yes their was a disclaimer on the 2018 video. No it wasn't fake either.
But the problem here is everyone is taking a black and white approach to this, which is almost just as bad. I'll admit I'm guilty of it too.
I've said before the game is a 6/10. Most reviewers are giving it a 7/10 and I can appreciate that. But to the topic on hand, isn't what's a lie and what's not a lie. The point is, even taking the 2018 video out, and concentrating on the 2019 videos and the Night City Wires, the game doesn't match the marketing.
Now you can say all kinds of personal things about how my own personal feelings... blah blah blah... but in reality the marketing doesn't match what we got. That's not even including the... not quite accurate statements about the game... such as how it runs great on last gen consoles.
But even ignoring the hype and the marketing I expect better from CDPR. I expect a proper AI, and not the half tacked on generated mess we got, with teleporting police, bystanders that may or may not react to what ever is going on around you, and cars on rails. This isn't quality CDPR work. This is quality Electronic Arts work.
It's brilliance is overshadowed by its shoddiness. Some people will overlook that shadow, and in their love of CDPR, and will concentrate only on the ugly stone in the middle, and realize it was a diamond that never quite got polished. Others won't even bother, because it's a game that was brilliant... 10 years ago... but by todays standards is lackluster and dull.
The truth is somewhere in the middle. It's a brilliant game, that CDPR didn't manage quite right, but swore up and down it was the greatest game ever in their marketing, and when it wasn't it had to fall back on the tried and true legalese of "the disclaimer said" and the "games change".
While you can't please all the people all the time, you certainly wouldn't be having this intense backlash from across all platforms, if the game was different from it's previews but still a great game. It's not a great game, it's a slightly above average game that would have been great 10 years ago, but gaming has moved on. CDPR hasn't. They wouldn't have to lean on "2019 vidoes" and disclaimers and spin tactics if this game was up to snuff.
But the problem here is everyone is taking a black and white approach to this, which is almost just as bad. I'll admit I'm guilty of it too.
I've said before the game is a 6/10. Most reviewers are giving it a 7/10 and I can appreciate that. But to the topic on hand, isn't what's a lie and what's not a lie. The point is, even taking the 2018 video out, and concentrating on the 2019 videos and the Night City Wires, the game doesn't match the marketing.
Now you can say all kinds of personal things about how my own personal feelings... blah blah blah... but in reality the marketing doesn't match what we got. That's not even including the... not quite accurate statements about the game... such as how it runs great on last gen consoles.
But even ignoring the hype and the marketing I expect better from CDPR. I expect a proper AI, and not the half tacked on generated mess we got, with teleporting police, bystanders that may or may not react to what ever is going on around you, and cars on rails. This isn't quality CDPR work. This is quality Electronic Arts work.
It's brilliance is overshadowed by its shoddiness. Some people will overlook that shadow, and in their love of CDPR, and will concentrate only on the ugly stone in the middle, and realize it was a diamond that never quite got polished. Others won't even bother, because it's a game that was brilliant... 10 years ago... but by todays standards is lackluster and dull.
The truth is somewhere in the middle. It's a brilliant game, that CDPR didn't manage quite right, but swore up and down it was the greatest game ever in their marketing, and when it wasn't it had to fall back on the tried and true legalese of "the disclaimer said" and the "games change".
While you can't please all the people all the time, you certainly wouldn't be having this intense backlash from across all platforms, if the game was different from it's previews but still a great game. It's not a great game, it's a slightly above average game that would have been great 10 years ago, but gaming has moved on. CDPR hasn't. They wouldn't have to lean on "2019 vidoes" and disclaimers and spin tactics if this game was up to snuff.