Any movie critic would say a bad paced, rushed plot is objectively bad.
There are some objective things critics look when examining a cinematic experience.
They don't just tell their subjective opinion.
Argument from single experience is a fallacious argument.
Points of objectivity aside (the reception of art is subjective, full stop, and if people can't handle that and think there is one way to do art, they need to travel a bit more, watch films that were "objectively good" 100 years ago, or, say, read Naked Lunch and have an existential crisis as their idea of the objective way a novel must be collapses. And good luck with Dadaism.)...
I think the problem with saying the main story plot is "rushed" is that it entirely depends on how the game has been played by the player. I didn't rush the main quest because I'm used to false urgency in these kinds of games. It's pretty standard for the genre and one of the tradeoffs if you want to combine a story that has any tension with a game that gives player choice.
Think Elder Scrolls Oblivion "hell is invading but, by all means, go eat some cakes and wander around inside a painting" or Witcher "your daughter is in grave danger and you must find her right now but why not pick some flowers and kill a random beastie and play a card game."
I think there was a single, major error in the storytelling which was for Vic to tell you that you've got days and it's super urgent you deal with your affliction. That could have been remedied by simply saying I don't know when it'll get urgent, could be a day, could be a year, but you'll know when it is, and then using Embers as the trigger point of "OK now it's urgent and you must do something".
But if you play the side quests, if you explore, the amount of content in the game is significant, and much of that is very meaty sidequests.
It doesn't feel rushed at all unless you only do the main quest on its own. Which, I can only assume, was not how the developers intended the game to be played. Indeed, it's a plain bad way to play the game because you lose all the narrative and philosophical colour that's been thrown everywhere on questions of consciousness and agency, the happy and hopeful stories that nuance V's own experience, and the atmosphere and sense of place/grounding you get by exploring the world. If they'd meant it to be played that way, moreover, certain endings would not be locked off if you only do the bare bones main quest.
Cyberpunk has the most well-integrated set of narratives I've ever seen in a computer game. Virtually all the side content has something to say about the game's philosophical preoccupations rather than just being random, disconnected stories. I have never, ever seen a non-linear game even attempt that level of narrative coherence before so I think it's a shame that people aren't approaching the full game as a unified narrative. It's quite telling that some players dismiss the game's plot as "little man versus corporations" while to other people who have played it differently it would not even occur to them that that was the game's theme because it focuses so much on higher questions.
So if there was one change they could make after the event to dialogue, I would love to see them change that dialogue with Vic with which they seem, for some players, to have shot themselves in the foot. To some players, it seems to be getting interpreted as "you *must* rush the main quest", rather than "you *may* rush the main quest if you're really busy and don't really have time to play the whole game".
