Anything with big gameworld, freedom to do the main story or divert your attention to sidequests whenever you want, lots of sidequests to complete. Like "RPG", it is a very broad term.
That would exclude TW3, Dragon Age: Inquisition, entire Batman Arkham series (after Arkham City), Far Cry 3 and Primal (maybe some more, I haven't played all), every Assassin's Creed game ever, etc... Yeah, the world doesn't open up immediatelly, but as you progress the main story; starting zone is often restricted and is used as "warm-up" area. Cyberpunk 2077 certainly didn't invent this.
Regarding the individual features, no, it does not offer anything mindblowing. However, there is no other game that does things which Cyberpunk does and do them better.
In my opinion and with my (very) little experience, yes it does few things. Like I said previously, that you can play many hours without cuts, cinematics, loading screens or even with loosing control of your character (if there is a game who already did that, I don't know which...)
For example, the first time you leave your apartment, you can play easily 10-20 hours in a row wihtout any loading screen or cut (by also doing main quests, not just wandering...)
Dead Space 2 did that, with third person view cutscenes. To some extend Far Cry 2 did that with first person view everything and the open world without loading screens. You do lose control over your character in many moments, especially when you take a ride and the only control you have is the camera. Can you control the character? No. Something like that was done in Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare and basically all other Call of Duty games after.
There is a game called Remember Me, it uses the idea of looking at people's memories and interacting with those memories. Another game that does a similar thing is Life is Strange in which you can control the flow of time and change things around. There was another game that used similar concept to brain dance but I can't remember the title right now. But it's not revolutionary, not new and not done exceptionally well either.
Cyberpunk takes from all the games and puts everything into one title. It also has all the bugs that were seen in all of those games it took elements from.
In my opinion and with my (very) little experience, yes it does few things. Like I said previously, that you can play many hours without cut, cinematics, loading screen or even loosing control of your character (if there is a game who already did that, I don't know which...)
Half_life. What I like about Cyberpunk that's moving away from traditional cutscenes. Movie-like cutscenes from videogames were never able to compete with scenes from movies, it was always inferior version of it. The way intereaction are done in Cyberpunk are very refreshing for me, there is good idea behind - to make player doing some kind in-game acting (of course it's limited less or more but it's good start).
For me, a city of this quality cannot be wasted and left only as a setting where you live the 33 missions of the main story and the 75 secondary missions that have been written. The level of detail of the city is typical of a game where the level of detail of everything that moves in it is at the same level.
Filling the city with street stories and giving strength to the ai of the npcs, traffic and public transport can give you hundreds of hours of surprise, enjoyment and immersion. It cannot be wasted !!!
A wonderful idea would be to create new stories monthly that make you stay connected to the game like a good TV series. We'd love to experience hundreds of more stories within Night city, imagine how much enjoyment it could make us and how successful CDP would make making Cyberpunk 2077 a live game with new content continuing. Official content and content from the Modders continued, that is the path of success for this new IP.
Problem is with story. Story is working against open-world in cyberpunk. Main character is slowly dying, doing all these gigs in game and side mission sometimes is hard to explain outside act 1 (Watson) - sometimes its money (quest with Panam), but that's it. That's why I think Arasaka ending is canon, because V should just rush to solve his problems avoiding anything else. Not even mentioned doing silly things in open world.
Some things are not in game imo (like minigames) because it would cause some conflict with main quest. Unnecessary distraction I would say.
That is something all open world games should avoid: creating false sense of urgency. How to avoid it? Don't funking do it! Make the player progress and decide what they want to prioritise themselves!
I am dying in the game for 4000 hours. I am looking for my kidnapped son for 30 000 hours. I have to stop this organisation from firing a nuke for 300 hours, and they are always launching any minute.
I think CDPR knew that Cyberpunk 2077 won't get a character-focused sequel because the game won't age well, so they decided to kill the character off and make the next game a re-boot of the series.
Problem is with story. Story is working against open-world in cyberpunk. Main character is slowly dying, doing all these gigs in game and side mission sometimes is hard to explain outside act 1 (Watson) - sometimes its money (quest with Panam), but that's it. That's why I think Arasaka ending is canon, because V should just rush to solve his problems avoiding anything else. Not even mentioned doing silly things in open world.
Man dies the way he was born: soft, weak and helpless. Death, the one certainty in this universe of chaos, can be both a tragic end and a release from suffering. It can come as an unexpected twist, or as a beautiful, crowning counterpart to a live well lived.
The curse we face as humanity, the only living beings in constant awareness of death, is our inordinate focus on the fact. How much happier is the life of the gazelle that escapes the cheetah's clutches, thinking that it evaded death once and for all, than the poor soul living out his days knowing each step inches him close to the void!
Dead Space 2 did that, with third person view cutscenes. To some extend Far Cry 2 did that with first person view everything and the open world without loading screens. You do lose control over your character in many moments, especially when you take a ride and the only control you have is the camera. Can you control the character? No. Something like that was done in Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare and basically all other Call of Duty games after.
There is a game called Remember Me, it uses the idea of looking at people's memories and interacting with those memories. Another game that does a similar thing is Life is Strange in which you can control the flow of time and change things around. There was another game that used similar concept to brain dance but I can't remember the title right now. But it's not revolutionary, not new and not done exceptionally well either.
Cyberpunk takes from all the games and puts everything into one title. It also has all the bugs that were seen in all of those games it took elements from.
Braindance is from Cyberpunk lore.
It's about interactive cutscenes, conversations in game like that. Something similar was done in Fallout 4 but not for same reason CDPR took this idea and used it to other purposes...more artisic than ' i want to leave conversation whenI want to"
That is something all open world games should avoid: creating false sense of urgency. How to avoid it? Don't funking do it! Make the player progress and decide what they want to prioritise themselves!
I am dying in the game for 4000 hours. I am looking for my kidnapped son for 30 000 hours. I have to stop this organisation from firing a nuke for 300 hours, and they are always launching any minute.
I think CDPR knew that Cyberpunk 2077 won't get a character-focused sequel because the game won't age well, so they decided to kill the character off and make the next game a re-boot of the series.
it doesn't really matter where something is from. It's been done before. The concept has been used by others in different capacities. Some games even make it their main focus. Cyberpunk as a game made by CDPR is not unique with their game mechanic-- that's my point.
Just how you can't call bullet time in Enter The Matrix revolutionary because it was done and popularised in games by Max Payne. It doesn't matter that the concept of dodging bullets in movies was popularised by Matrix. The game "matrix" is not revolutionary as the game because other game did it first and better.
The protagonist dying at the end no matter what is pretty cyberpunk, not gonna lie. But that is again beside the point. You are presenting that argument as if there was no other way to make a cyberpunk story work.
I did play Fallout 1 and it's my favourite Fallout out of all of them. And there is a timer. And when the timer actually reaches ZERO-- it's game over. It's not a false sense of urgency. And then, after you make it under the time restrains, there is another, hidden timer!! And the world of the game slowly deteriorates IN REAL TIME as you are taking your time saving it!! It's literally the opposite of FALSE sense of urgency.
Anything with big gameworld, freedom to do the main story or divert your attention to sidequests whenever you want, lots of sidequests to complete. Like "RPG", it is a very broad term.
That would exclude TW3, Dragon Age: Inquisition, entire Batman Arkham series (after Arkham City), Far Cry 3 and Primal (maybe some more, I haven't played all), every Assassin's Creed game ever, etc... Yeah, the world doesn't open up immediatelly, but as you progress the main story; starting zone is often restricted and is used as "warm-up" area. Cyberpunk 2077 certainly didn't invent this.
Regarding the individual features, no, it does not offer anything mindblowing. However, there is no other game that does things which Cyberpunk does and do them better.
Official definition: " In video games, an open world is a game mechanic of using a virtual world that the player can explore and approach objectives freely, as opposed to a world with more linear and structured gameplay.[1][2] While games have used open-world designs since the 1980s, the implementation in Grand Theft Auto III (2001) set a standard that has been used since.[3]
Games with open or free-roaming worlds typically lack level structures like walls and locked doors, or the invisible walls in more open areas that prevent the player from venturing beyond them; only at the bounds of an open-world game will players be limited by geographic features like vast oceans or impassable mountains. Players typically do not encounter loading screens common in linear level designs when moving about the game world, with the open-world game using strategic storage and memory techniques to load the game world in a dynamic and seamless manner. Open-world games still enforce many restrictions in the game environment, either because of absolute technical limitations or in-game limitations imposed by a game's linearity."
How is Dishonored 2 not open world?
I never said W3, Dragon Age: Inquisition, entire Batman Arkham series (after Arkham City), Far Cry 3 and Primal (maybe some more, I haven't played all), every Assassin's Creed game ever are not open world.
Witcher 3, Dragon Age: Inquisition, Arkham City, Arkham Knight, Far cry 3, Dishonored 2, Last of Us 2, Assassins Creed, GTA 3, 4, 5, SKYRIM, Gothic 1, 2, Phantom Pain are all games with open world design where you can free roam in a non-liniar way. Some ore more open world then others being a sandbox too like Skyrim, GTA 5.
So Cyberpunk does offer nothing to backup the claim: "futuristic RPG settings totally new standard in the genre both in terms of the gameplay".
Deus Ex, Dishonored, Vampyr are much better in terms of Immersive Sim and interactivity, consequence, dialog.
Skyrim, GTA 5 are far better in term of sandbox and open world design.
Vampire bloodlines, Gothic series, Pillars of Eternity, Disco Elysium, Fallout New Vegas, Dragon Age 2 are far better RPGs.
Cyberpunk does many things but is mediocre at them. Mediocre Immersive Sim. Mediocre RPG. Mediocre Sandbox.
it doesn't really matter where something is from. It's been done before. The concept has been used by others in different capacities. Some games even make it their main focus. Cyberpunk as a game made by CDPR is not unique with their game mechanic-- that's my point.
Just how you can't call bullet time in Enter The Matrix revolutionary because it was done and popularised in games by Max Payne. It doesn't matter that the concept of dodging bullets in movies was popularised by Matrix. The game "matrix" is not revolutionary as the game because other game did it first and better.
The protagonist dying at the end no matter what is pretty cyberpunk, not gonna lie. But that is again beside the point. You are presenting that argument as if there was no other way to make a cyberpunk story work.
I did play Fallout 1 and it's my favourite Fallout out of all of them. And there is a timer. And when the timer actually reaches ZERO-- it's game over. It's not a false sense of urgency. And then, after you make it under the time restrains, there is another, hidden timer!! And the world of the game slowly deteriorates because you are taking your time saving it!! It's literally the opposite of FALSE sense of urgency.
Its not game over, story just ends. False sense of urgency is only partially in Cyberpunk. During secret ending ( don't remeber this in other endings) your health will slowly decrease during events. I don't know why this kind of thing was not presented in other endings or even whole game, but I guess, it would make some players angry, and game not pleasent for many. Thing with health is also not comatibile with RPG, where your character leveling up and can increas hp during game. My point False sense of urgency is in game, but it's intentional, based on what is going on in secret ending -some mechanics could be implemented to force player to focus on main storyline - but it was not done.
Whole conversation system, and presentation is pretty unique for Cyberpunk and pretty much revolutionary. Like I said, after playing Cyberpunk, cutscenes in other games feels ...outdated. Traditional cutscens are just small movies inside games, and not even good movies.
There's conflict between story and open world actitivties (gigs, nps scans), yeah, I've alredy said it. Thats why this whole discussion about NPCs and open world activities are not that interesting for me. If CDPR wants to make full sandbox game they have to start with story that will support this kind of game, no other way around.
Whole conversation system, and presentation is pretty unique for Cyberpunk and pretty much revolutionary. Like I said, after playing Cyberpunk, cutscenes in other games feels ...outdated. Traditional cutscens are just small movies inside games, and not even good movies.
Told you already - if you want to compare individual aspects of CP2077 to the greatest assets of dozen other games, then yeah, it's not gonna look very impressive. However, it does beat all of those games you listed in some other areas.
If I have to play 12 games at the same time (and ignore their weakest points) in order to have better experience than playing Cyberpunk, than I don't think this is really the evidence of this game being a failure.
But, if you absolutely want to insist on novelty, then, as @maniak6767 already said, you have the conversation system and interactive first-person cutscenes.
I partially agree with you on the ground of the story supporting the gameplay. Also on the ground of it working the other way around. I do agree on that.
What I don't agree is how we are using words "unique" and "revolutionary".
There is nothing unique and/or revolutionary gameplay wise and/or narration wise. It was all done before so it's not unique. Aslo nothing in CP2077 shaked the entire industry and made all the other companies follow suit. Maybe with exception of pushing releases of their games into 2022 because they would end up "cyberpunked".
Revolution means lots of copycats and the entire industry making a turn, mimicking the thing taht is revolutionary. So far I see no such trend caused by any of CP's mechanics. Nobody's making another cyberpunk game set in open world. Nobody's making anything remotely similar to Cyberpunk that we know of. Cyberpunk is not revolutionary because it didn't cause the revolution. It's a nice buzz-word.
The conversation system where you can walk away from NPC is known from other games before, mostly from Skyrim. Also, try walking away from main quest-givers. Try not answering a call, or not taking a side-mission. There is a reason why the most important moments in the game make you sit in a car or being held by someone. You are not in control.
Post automatically merged:
One of the games I'd compare to Cyberpunk would be Dying Light. I love that game. it doesn't have interactive cutscenes, you are not even in control of the camera. But you are always you. There is no cutscenes from what I remember.
You are infected in Dying Light and you will die if you won't receive a medicine. It's totally scripted and not an element of the gameplay loop. It doesn't have all those mechanics that sound incredible on paper and completely broken in practice. Dying Light is a complete package and works really well for what it is. And that's something I can't say about Cyberpunk. It doesn't work really well for what it is, because CDPR couldn't make it work.
The concept of Dying Light is quite simple: you have zombies and you have parkour. Everything else is fluff. You can make any game you want with that one thing: parkour and enemies to kill/avoid.
What is the concept of Cyberpunk 2077? Erm... you... are... in a city? And you do missions? And... there is a story? But what is the core mechanics?? Um... you... do... missions? In a city? So how well is that one aspect of the game done? Well, the city looks great and the design of everything is incredible, and there is this feel of cyberpunk in it... No, no! How is the doing missions in the game done? Are they extremelly polished? Are they non-linear and bugs-free? Why are they so unique? Why are they so revolutionary? Well, there are those memorable characters... Oh, and you have Panam! And Photo-Mode, I'll show you some sick pictures...! Sure, sure, but are the missions specifically crafted to give you absolutely unique experience? Well... look, you can alway refund, ok? And it's a matter of opinion so that's that as well.
And that's how it is with Cyberpunk 2077. Very unique and revolutionary until you start digging into the core experience.
Told you already - if you want to compare individual aspects of CP2077 to the greatest assets of dozen other games, then yeah, it's not gonna look very impressive. However, it does beat all of those games you listed in some other areas.
If I have to play 12 games at the same time (and ignore their weakest points) in order to have better experience than playing Cyberpunk, than I don't think this is really the evidence of this game being a failure.
But, if you absolutely want to insist on novelty, then, as @maniak6767 already said, you have the conversation system and interactive first-person cutscenes.
"The brilliance of Half-Life begins with its immersive storytelling. The opening accustoms us to the Black Mesa research facility, tells us a little about Freeman’s role and sets up the narrative universe – all without leaving his perspective."
"The brilliance of Half-Life begins with its immersive storytelling. The opening accustoms us to the Black Mesa research facility, tells us a little about Freeman’s role and sets up the narrative universe – all without leaving his perspective."
About conversation? Nothing whatsoever. What's new is its integration in uninterrupted, FPP interactive cutscenes.
There's nothing new or revolutionary about police chases, riding trains, flying AVs, customizing cars and apartments, etc, yet this game is criticised for not having it. Are you going to tell people who ask for it to shut up because it's been done before already?
Is it even important if some aspcet of the game is super revolutionary or not? There are few truly revolutionary games that redefined a genre or a game mechanic. There are more games that used established genres and mechanics and put their own twist on them or did it better than others before them...or were just really well-rounded packages. And many of these games are considered great, or even masterpieces, without them being hailed as "revolutionary". Witcher 3 didn't really revolutionize the genre, but it was an outstanding example of the genre open world ARPG, with great characters, world design, interconnected story and fantastic sidequests.
The problem is that Cyberpunk is not one of these games, not really. I think the game really excels at wold design, voice acting and presentation and immersion in the main character. But this gets diluted by the quest design ranging from pretty brilliant to meh. By the lack of meaningful consequences. By the bad balancing and useless perks. By all the shortcuts and missed opportunities. By the stupid AI. And by the legion of crashes, bugs and lack of QoL features.
Q1/ are going to lunch a big update for pc same day next gen comes out?
Q2/ are you planning to improve enemy AI on pc? because sometimes they just do nothing or do stupid things.
please reply and thank you for the hard work.
Hello.
Probably it should be "experience" instead of "eperience" here, in the text description of Thorton Galena G240 (2031) in the database.
Happy Holidays and keep improving, guys.
Thanks for the game.
I liked this game I really enjoyed playing it just wanted to carry on after going off with panam in the end
Post automatically merged:
Also one gripe the relationship stories need to be longer and more detailed so you should be able to do things with the person your character is in a relationship with and be intimate more than once and grow the relationship bigger and better
