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.
Yep. The interesting part is he didn't have to do so. The purpose was to illustrate the footage wasn't fully implemented game systems. It was more like a mock-up showing what they were aiming to achieve. The impartial approach would have been to simply say so. Instead of tossing the word fake in there to stir the pot.
Yep again. This is where the whole they lied and it's technically there narratives get lost on me. Neither statement tends to go anywhere. It ends up fixating on whether a statement was technically true if you cut it up and analyze every fine detail contained within it. Conversely, it glosses over the statement and assumes deception was the goal. A more productive approach is to look at a mechanic/game system, point out the pros/cons and offer suggestions to improve it. The fixation on truth/lie inevitably acts as a roadblock of sorts for reaching this level of productive criticism.
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.
Yes, he clearly knows how they are made, thats why he wrote that the demo was faked:
What they didn’t know was that the demo was almost entirely fake. CD Projekt hadn’t yet finalized and coded the underlying gameplay systems, which is why so many features, such as car ambushes, were missing from the final product. Developers said they felt like the demo was a waste of months that should have gone toward making the game.
This is the problem - it wasn't a vertical slice. The systems we had seen on the demo weren't even implemented, just scripted, so there is at least one layer that this supposed "vertical slice" was missing, hence it wasn't one. Also developers said that making the supposed demo was a waste of time that could have gone towards making a game, which pretty much means that whatever they were working on wasn't a part of the game, and if it wasn't a part of the game, then it wasn't a demo. This is why it's called fake and this is 100% accurate to called it that.
This is the problem - it wasn't a vertical slice. The systems we had seen on the demo weren't even implemented, just scripted, so there is at least one layer that this supposed "vertical slice" was missing, hence it wasn't one.
A vertical slice is a portion of a game which acts as a proof of concept for stakeholders before they agree to fund the rest. It is not the same thing as a prototype in that it is expected to look of final quality and play like the final game....
www.whatgamesare.com
So yeah, you can call it demo, preview, none of those things or all things at once - it doesn't really matter. Portraying that 2018 showcase as a "fake demo" sounds like deliberate attempt to stir controversy by Schreier.
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.
This has been discussed before, so I'd be curious as to how it doesn't match with what was presented during 2019 and NCW episodes in your opinion.
Besides the marketing fluff statements I sincerely think that everything that was shown during those segments is more or less the same as it is now in the game, minor exception the monowire hack and the gorilla arms opening doors that require strength (which is still inconclusive as I haven't personally tried it in the game yet as I dislike the idea of V removing limbs for cyberware).
I was following the build-up to the release while keeping my expectations in check and reasonably expecting what CDPR was capable off so for me the dissonance doesn't go any further than performance issues and gameplay inconsistencies (fully expected but still bad).
Yep. The interesting part is he didn't have to do so. The purpose was to illustrate the footage wasn't fully implemented game systems. It was more like a mock-up showing what they were aiming to achieve. The impartial approach would have been to simply say so. Instead of tossing the word fake in there to stir the pot.
Even that isn't fully accurate as the preview used the original code, as in engine, animations etc. and voice-over work, so it wasn't all created purposefully for the preview demo itself.
The way it's worded in the article makes it seem like CDPR took manpower away from the development process simply to create a once-and-done demo akin to the Killzone demo (we all know how that went down) which is simply not the case here.
A vertical slice is a portion of a game which acts as a proof of concept for stakeholders before they agree to fund the rest. It is not the same thing as a prototype in that it is expected to look of final quality and play like the final game....
www.whatgamesare.com
So yeah, you can call it demo, preview, none of those things or all things at once - it doesn't really matter. Portraying that 2018 showcase as a "fake demo" sounds like deliberate attempt to stir controversy by Schreier.
When what this supposed "demo" was should be visualized more like this:
Or maybe even more like this:
Do you understand the issue here? The systems shown in the supposed "demo" weren't even implemented, so the slice is missing it's portion, which was then filled with scripted content. This makes this whole thing NOT a vertical slice.
I have no idea. They were unable to deliver something better within the time constraints. My guess is that they have some serious problems with RED engine streaming capabilities and storing so much data in memory. That's why we'll not get any significant AI improvements in the game.
How AI (pedestrians, bystanders) work in CP2077?
It's something like that:
If player enters the area:
- spawn AI out of thin air (in the distance or in some back alley with the portal).
If the player turns around:
- despawn AI (usually right away) and remove it from the memory COMPLETELY.
If the player stays in the area and
A) spawned AI is within his/her field of view and is a pedestrian:
- make AI follow the prescripted path from point A to point B;
- if AI reaches point B, it should turn around and try to reach point A etc.
- if AI reaches a specific trigger (vending machine, bench, smoking corner etc.) along the path between A and B, it should perform a specific contextual animation (buy, eat, smoke, turn the tablet on etc.) and then continue along the path;
B) spawned AI is within his/her field of view and is a customer/worker/musician/policeman:
- AI should stay in one place and perform some contextual action (animation) in a loop.
Of course, it's quite simplified description. But what's important: there are no "daily routines" in CP2077. Because AI's "lifespan" is dependent on the player's presence. AI might be alive for just 2 seconds. As soon as the player leaves the area, AI "dies" and is completely removed from memory. The game does not keep track of random AIs in the city. You will never meet exactly the same person twice. It might be the same model in the same outfit. But not the same AI. (Perhaps with the exception of some AI in crucial points in the city that are chained to some location forever).
It's different in e.g. RDR2. Obviously, AI disappears (is not rendered) when the player leaves the area. But the game stores some data in the memory and "revives" this AI if you return to the same place. You can also follow the specific AI and see that it behaves quite reasonably (works, walks, sleeps etc.). It has daily routine.
Traffic AI in CP2077 is similar to pedestrian AI. All cars spawn out of thin air and, if you turn around, disappear in the void forever. There is no AI in all of this. These are all dummies that perform prescripted action: moving from point A to point B (and stop at a red light or when the player/other car is hit). They are unable to react even to some small changes in the environment (e.g. bike on the road) that are caused by the player. If anything stands in their prescripted way, they stop and wait for the player to turn around so they can disappear.
That's why all our dreams about AI or traffic improvements are just... dreams. I think that CDPR needs to build AI from scratch. And redesign streaming capabilities of the engine to make it possible.
Nah, if you skip time forward throughout the day you'll see some Npcs only appear at specific times in specific areas.
Its basically, spawn X random walking npcs depending on time of day and location.
Spawn A sitting with girl B between 11 pm and 4am Girl A/B is pulled from a grab back of generally similar types. Sometimes spawn conversation. 8am to 12pm spawn Lady talking on phone standing by closed Bodega.
Basically certain npcs have schedules, but they aren't like, "Sara Gooden" they are like Corpo girl 7. corpo girl 7 appearance is randomized within corpo girl 7 pool. The npc's schedules are generally not super deep, and its not really possible to track them, because their schedules are behind the scenes. The npcs will stay in the general area they are supposed to be in once you see them, even if they are no longer supposed to be in that area. If you turn around and look back though, they will update.
You can see 3 kids playing hopskotch close to Vs apartment within a certain time frame, two of them will always be twins, even though their appearance varies. I think they will always have the same name, though the name changes. I think around 5 pm they will always disappear.
I remember a street corner in the city, a black chick with an accent will always be sitting next to a mid corpo chick, from like 11 to 5.
so they built schedules, they tied them to npcs, but the npcs come from a pool, based on type and maybe voice. They probably had problems holding memory for all those assets, and their work around was to lower their permanace. But they still spawn some of them on schedules, and some based on pedestrian traffic algorithms.
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.
every game that through marketing implies its the best New thing is probably inaccurate. Maybe its because I learned that years ago for all products, that this whole debate never really hit me.
I never played witcher seriously, I wasn't particularly hyped. I remember seeing part of the 2018 video, and being more interested in the concept of a cyberpunk world than feeling like the game was breaking ground. It also seemed very on rails, and narrative focused.
I'm judging it solely on what it delivered, which is an immersive rpg, with an excellent world and great character driven story. I played pc, and while it has a lot of bugs, and some features poorly executed (broken perks and itemization are my main complaints) because its an RPG,,I'm going to judge it mostly on its strengths. Also, I am of the type where polish is less important than what you achieve. I would not call a game great just because its bug free and polished, I would call a game great if it does something really really well, even unpolished.
point blank, I have not played an rpg this good at immersion and character driven story telling, with well executed world in years.
Its clearly a less interesting cops/robbers and mess with pedestrians game than gtav, but messing with pedestrians and cops and robbers is not not the focus of the game world. Thats literally the basis of the whole gta franchise.
Do you understand the issue here? The systems shown in the supposed "demo" weren't even implemented, so the slice is missing it's portion, which was then filled with scripted content. This makes this whole thing NOT a vertical slice.
All of this is based on the assumption that they didn't have anything else to show for all the work that went into the game but the vertical slice itself.
Which is really not the case per this article posted in 2018.
''Cyberpunk 2077 has been in development for at least six years and its team recently hit a major milestone: The entire game is playable from start to finish. It doesn't have all of the proper assets, playtesting or bug fixes in place, but seeing the story come together is a critical step in the development process, Borzymowski said.''
You could of course claim that they lied and continued to lie since the conception of the game itself which is a fair take I won't deny, but at one point one needs to take a step back and come to a reasonable conclusion from all of this.
My conclusion is that they had an initial take on the game which was further iterated upon to arrive to the game that we have today, being playable from start to finish doesn't mean that it's flawless or that it has all the systems in place or even if those same systems achieve the desired outcome to begin with.
It just means that you can get to the end of the game with everything that it entails (bugs, broken systems, unfinished assets, graybox etc.).
But it also goes to show that it's much more closer to what @gregski was saying, key word prototyping ''you’ve gotten a few prototypes built to showcase the individual major systems at work''.
Do you understand the issue here? The systems shown in the supposed "demo" weren't even implemented, so the slice is missing it's portion, which was then filled with scripted content. This makes this whole thing NOT a vertical slice.
Not sure what you're trying to prove here, you can argue about semantics and definitions all you want. From Schreier's article:
Fans and journalists were wowed by Cyberpunk 2077’s ambition and scale. What they didn’t know was that the demo was almost entirely fake. CD Projekt hadn’t yet finalized and coded the underlying gameplay systems, which is why so many features, such as car ambushes, were missing from the final product.
Again - calling something unfinished and put together specifically to showcase a game a "fake demo" is just bad faith from Schreier. This is industry standard and he decided to spin it in a negative way for a reason.
This has been discussed before, so I'd be curious as to how it doesn't match with what was presented during 2019 and NCW episodes in your opinion.
Besides the marketing fluff statements I sincerely think that everything that was shown during those segments is more or less the same as it is now in the game, minor exception the monowire hack and the gorilla arms opening doors that require strength (which is still inconclusive as I haven't personally tried it in the game yet as I dislike the idea of V removing limbs for cyberware).
I was following the build-up to the release while keeping my expectations in check and reasonably expecting what CDPR was capable off so for me the dissonance doesn't go any further than performance issues and gameplay inconsistencies (fully expected but still bad).
Post automatically merged:
Even that isn't fully accurate as the preview used the original code, as in engine, animations etc. and voice-over work, so it wasn't all created purposefully for the preview demo itself.
The way it's worded in the article makes it seem like CDPR took manpower away from the development process simply to create a once-and-done demo akin to the Killzone demo (we all know how that went down) which is simply not the case here.
I don't think it's got everything, and some things are from the 2018 part, but a lot of the things he mentions isn't in game or is in game in a very small way, and it's from quotes from 2019.
Point is, a lot of things mentioned in 2019 didn't make it in game. I get it, you're one of those people who want to defend CDPR and Cyberpunk, and on this forum I get it. I really do. I think you're wrong, and others, including professionals, think you're wrong, but you're intitled to your opinion, regardless of facts.
every game that through marketing implies its the best New thing is probably inaccurate. Maybe its because I learned that years ago for all products, that this whole debate never really hit me.
I never played witcher seriously, I wasn't particularly hyped. I remember seeing part of the 2018 video, and being more interested in the concept of a cyberpunk world than feeling like the game was breaking ground. It also seemed very on rails, and narrative focused.
I'm judging it solely on what it delivered, which is an immersive rpg, with an excellent world and great character driven story. I played pc, and while it has a lot of bugs, and some features poorly executed (broken perks and itemization are my main complaints) because its an RPG,,I'm going to judge it mostly on its strengths. Also, I am of the type where polish is less important than what you achieve. I would not call a game great just because its bug free and polished, I would call a game great if it does something really really well, even unpolished.
point blank, I have not played an rpg this good at immersion and character driven story telling, with well executed world in years.
Its clearly a less interesting cops/robbers and mess with pedestrians game than gtav, but messing with pedestrians and cops and robbers is not not the focus of the game world. Thats literally the basis of the whole gta franchise.
See I agree, it's very good an immersion and character driven story, but I want to comment on the bolded part (bold mine) that you mentioned.
Judging a game solely on it's strengths and ignoring its weaknesses is exactly the problem. People are trying so badly to defend this game, and so badly trying to find anything to back up their argument, that they are ignoring the bad parts of the game.
So saying "it's exactly like this video" is doing CDPR and this game an injustice and more importantly us as players, and injustice. As long as game companies think they can get away with rushed, barely finished (or unfinished games) that 3 months later still are so buggy that the game company is trying to fix it, just tells them they can continue doing this.
Now I want CDPR to succeed, I really do. I want Cyberpunks DLC and Multiplayer to be the best thing on earth. But if CDPR thinks they can get away with launching an unfinished and shoddy title, makes oodles of money, and have their fans defend them, it'll just ruin another company.
And we already have too many Electronic Arts and Bethesdas.
CDPR is better then what they gave us. They know it, they even said it in their apology. That's not an opinion, that's their statement. So saying anything otherwise just encourages them to continue this shoddy behavior of rushed games.
I don't think it's got everything, and some things are from the 2018 part, but a lot of the things he mentions isn't in game or is in game in a very small way, and it's from quotes from 2019.
Point is, a lot of things mentioned in 2019 didn't make it in game. I get it, you're one of those people who want to defend CDPR and Cyberpunk, and on this forum I get it. I really do. I think you're wrong, and others, including professionals, think you're wrong, but you're intitled to your opinion, regardless of facts.
Post automatically merged:
See I agree, it's very good an immersion and character driven story, but I want to comment on the bolded part (bold mine) that you mentioned.
Judging a game solely on it's strengths and ignoring its weaknesses is exactly the problem. People are trying so badly to defend this game, and so badly trying to find anything to back up their argument, that they are ignoring the bad parts of the game.
So saying "it's exactly like this video" is doing CDPR and this game an injustice and more importantly us as players, and injustice. As long as game companies think they can get away with rushed, barely finished (or unfinished games) that 3 months later still are so buggy that the game company is trying to fix it, just tells them they can continue doing this.
Now I want CDPR to succeed, I really do. I want Cyberpunks DLC and Multiplayer to be the best thing on earth. But if CDPR thinks they can get away with launching an unfinished and shoddy title, makes oodles of money, and have their fans defend them, it'll just ruin another company.
And we already have too many Electronic Arts and Bethesdas.
CDPR is better then what they gave us. They know it, they even said it in their apology. That's not an opinion, that's their statement. So saying anything otherwise just encourages them to continue this shoddy behavior of rushed games.
to be honest I have no real loyalty or great feeling for cdpr. I give then kudos for making this very ambitious game, and nailing the aspects I mentioned. However as an overall manufacturer, They haven't really inspired any special trust, or reason to think they can go beyond their strengths.
I guess the difference is you think they are cutting edge innovators or really great from a polished gameplay side, and I really haven't seen any evidence of that. It'll be great if they achieve this one day, but to be 100% honest its not my main concern, and the reality is cutting edge innovation and polish very rarely intersect. In fact, id say their desire to innovate a large, no loading seamless city with so many npcs and assets and high res textures is directly responsible for many of the things people complain about. And for me, I'm OK with that, because I think it was a worthwhile tradeoff. (id rather not have loading screens, less npcs, less npc variety, less crowd movements, less textures in exchange for havok)
Essentially, I don't have big expectations, imo cyberpunk 2077 they pulled it together and made a great game, however they did so messily enough that I can't be sure the can pull it off consistently. Fact is, all the bugs have thrown the development cycle far off. They still have tons of broken perks. They already delayed the game multiple times, and now dlc is pushed out by 4-6 months, expansions who knows how long, and sequels? well it took them 8 years last time. So it looks like based on history I would not have high expectations.
Cdprk seems to be one of those artists who make great things, but they aren't consistent, predictable or polished. In the rap world, a Nas. Or a Leonardo da vinci in painting. Better to let the work come out, and judge it based on what it achieves rather than expect and hold em to something they have shown no signs of mastering.( great management of resources/time/polish/best execution of mechanics)
I don't think it's got everything, and some things are from the 2018 part, but a lot of the things he mentions isn't in game or is in game in a very small way, and it's from quotes from 2019.
Point is, a lot of things mentioned in 2019 didn't make it in game. I get it, you're one of those people who want to defend CDPR and Cyberpunk, and on this forum I get it. I really do. I think you're wrong, and others, including professionals, think you're wrong, but you're intitled to your opinion, regardless of facts.
Third person cutscenes which was already discussed and I personally agree with the change.
The fifth:
Lifepaths...
Everything shown in the trailer is present in the game and you can chose to play out your lifepath to conclusion or mix in between the three lifepaths available with an emphasis on the one chosen at the start due to dialogue choices.
''Little impact on the overall Role Playing Experience'' is a subjective term since multiple people found value in their own way of interpreting V's story... observe this thread.
Parkour, which actually means wall running and mantis blade grapple which was again confirmed to be removed in June 2020 like the car customization, interesting that the article mentions this for one but not the other.
Either way you're free to parkour through the game as much as you want with the right implants...
The seventh:
Dual wielding...
Really, was it expected since Jacky has dual pistols or was it really hopeful thinking?
The eighth:
AI routines, the way it was portrayed in the 2018 demo.
''We've greatly enhanced our crowd and community systems to create the most believable city in any open-world game to date''
"The city streets are bustling with crowds of people from all facets of life, all living their lives, with a full day/night cycle."
From my personal observation that exists, there are AI routines dependent on the time of day, same as the crowd system, the problem is the AI culling.
As for the main narrative NPC AI that's a problem for me as well, Judy spending her whole life staring out the window...
The ninth:
Misleading manhunt system...
I don't known what to say about this since the ''manhunt system'' was never at all implied, not the way the article seems to suggest.
It was literally a throwaway line in a vehicle showcase trailer.
The tenth:
The Flathead drone removal.
The article itself actually recollects the removal and admits that the flathead would have been an overlap with the already present skills for Netrunners and their source is a vague tumblr post.
Although admittedly I would have loved such a thing I can understand it's removal and it was never promised as the article implies.
The elventh:
The monorail system was said to be removed some time ago before release I believe it was at the same time with the rest of the features confirmed to be removed, and to my knowledge it was never a promised feature but one present in exactly one trailer - but I want to add that I do believe that it would have been awesome if it was in the game...
The twelfth:
The weather, it's dynamic and there is acid rain, it was never implied that it would damage the player though as the article implies.
So yeah all fun and games stirring up the pot...
I do admit that I hate the way they handled the launch of the game and it's unfair for a lot of people but inflating the issue is not the way to go.
So let me get this straight. You admit in your post that certain things that were mentioned in 2019 didn't make it to launch, which contradicts the OP that says that what was mentioned in 2019 is exactly what we got at launch, and then go on to say that contradicting the OP is simply stirring the pot?
Just trying to make sure I got this right in my head because I truly don't understand.
So let me get this straight. You admit in your post that certain things that were mentioned in 2019 didn't make it to launch, which contradicts the OP that says that what was mentioned in 2019 is exactly what we got at launch, and then go on to say that contradicting the OP is simply stirring the pot?
Just trying to make sure I got this right in my head because I truly don't understand.
You may want to read the article again. A lot was referenced to dev conversations in 2019. But you know what never mind. I now understand where you're coming from. No need to go deeper into this arguement when their is no point..
You may want to read the article again. A lot was referenced to dev conversations in 2019. But you know what never mind. I now understand where you're coming from. No need to go deeper into this arguement when their is no point..
