My favourite game, now dead

[Iosephus]

I've enjoyed the changes in 2.0. I like that the game feels different. I was not a fan of the loot system for much of Cyberpunk 2077's life cycle. For much of pre-2.0 you were encouraged to wait until you're high enough in level before looting items, at least if you want legendaries, and that is just frustrating to me.

Hell, if you wanted the crystaljock bomber variants you had to save-scum specific loot containers or enemies, which was absolutely annoying. The crystaljock bomber in my profile pic took so much save scumming in pre-2.0; it was such a pain. It's so much better now that I can walk into a store and just buy the clothing that I want, without worrying about the item's quality for defenses.

Pre-2.0 I would rarely visit a ripper, but now, you're encouraged to see a ripper ever few levels to tinker and upgrade your cyberware. To me, that just feels more immersive.

And netrunning is so damn powerful. When I first started seeing threads when 2.0 launched, people made it seem as if netrunning was gutted. However, to my surprise, not only was it still powerful, but you can still play it silently, not to mention in some regards it feels even more busted.

 

[Greeniewolf]

And for every one of 'you' there is also one that counters you.
For example: I also (pre)purchased everything at all instances and I love the game still. Beter now than before.
So here I am hoping CDPR wont listen to 'you'.
And like this, theres a myriad of voices saying something.

Btw, I've quoted you @Kraxe13, but this is supposed to be more generic.

In the end we'll find, or not find, people that either like or dislike the game.
Speaking for myself, the forums can become weary with all the various voices, so I tend to not venture here as often anymore. I'm then rather actually inside the game.
And opposite of me there's also probably gonna be someone who spams these forums...

And the rest of us, the ones that play, actually hope they do listen.

Post automatically merged: Oct 30, 2023

I've enjoyed the changes in 2.0. I like that the game feels different. I was not a fan of the loot system for much of Cyberpunk 2077's life cycle. For much of pre-2.0 you were encouraged to wait until you're high enough in level before looting items, at least if you want legendaries, and that is just frustrating to me.

Hell, if you wanted the crystaljock bomber variants you had to save-scum specific loot containers or enemies, which was absolutely annoying. The crystaljock bomber in my profile pic took so much save scumming in pre-2.0; it was such a pain. It's so much better now that I can walk into a store and just buy the clothing that I want, without worrying about the item's quality for defenses.

Pre-2.0 I would rarely visit a ripper, but now, you're encouraged to see a ripper ever few levels to tinker and upgrade your cyberware. To me, that just feels more immersive.

And netrunning is so damn powerful. When I first started seeing threads when 2.0 launched, people made it seem as if netrunning was gutted. However, to my surprise, not only was it still powerful, but you can still play it silently, not to mention in some regards it feels even more busted.

Netrunning is only powerful past level 30. before then it absolutely sucks. And even then it's powerful only if you follow 1 certain path in netrunning. if you're not a completionist, it won't ever be that powerful, since you can still beat the game in the 18-22 level range.

 

[Wragan]

^^ preach chooms, idk what are these people on about, but netrunning as well as all the gun builds are completely fine, in late game you just obliterate everything like you're supposed to, the difference is that now you actually need to work a bit to get there. pre 2.0 very hard was a joke, now it feels like an appropriate challenge, at least from early to mid game.

Then answer me this: could you create/make/come up with any other build for, say, Power Guns than the ones predetermined by the Perks? One that would even come close - not surpass or even 100% equal - the damage output/effectiveness against enemies?

Up until the point where you could have a highest tier perk unlocked, you CAN do decent - and so, many of the lower tier perks just provide support, not damage. But then, the game starts to expect that you have those insanely high bonuses from the highest tier perks - if you don't, you are screwed.

In games where there are multiple weapon of the same category - so, not just "the pistol for number 1, SMG for number 2, shotgun for number 3, etc." and weapon tiers, not to mention Specials/Uniques/Iconics, there are supposed to have some effect, impact of the decision to go with X weapon instead of Y weapon (Cyberpunk example: why would you use Kongou instead of Seraph? Feel free to put in this example any of the Iconic Pistols/Revolvers). They concentrated so much of the "possibly obtainable" damage into the highest tier perks that - for me at least - anything else is reduced to nuances. You get the perks, you stick with the playstyle they demand and you are done. That's all - there's nothing else. Can you play a Power Pistol using character as anything else then a "Headshot crtitter" ?
Also, in other games, where you can achieve additional damage output in different ways: headshot OR critical damage, damage over time etc. you can - in the good, well built ones - pick perks, items, stat bonuses and so on however you like to focus on one (even more than one, mixing things). You decide, which one and you can go with any of them (effectiveness of course depends on game balance ). Staying at Power Pistols and Revolvers, you can't stray from the headshot path, because you'd loose so much damage, there is no way you could come close to it's effectiveness.

With AR-s and SMG-s, it feels even worse, IMO. You know what you get with most of the perks for those? Better cardio! Many of the perks simply lowers the stamina cost (!) for shooting. They implemented (more like shoehorned in) a problem for the player, which said problem's impact the perks lower - to some degree. It's ridiculous.

The devs didn't lock damage bonuses behind higher level perks, they locked it behind playstyles that come with the perks. No variation. No exploring builds.

That's my problem!

Not the fact that you can't get OP by lvl 5, but the fact that I can ONLY get good decent damage by sticking with the ONE playstyle, with the one skill/perk tree for that weapon category. The game being a challenge IS a good thing. If one can't manage that, tune down the difficulty. If I have to play/grind/farm until lvl 30,40,50 to feel like I'm getting somewhere with my weapon(s) choice(s), build at the time, so be it, as long as I have OPTIONS to get there. I feel like, right now, I don't have any.

 

[GrimReaper801]

At this point it feels like you are just arguing semantics and being overly pedantic. I don’t know who you are trying to convince here.

I don't think you understand what arguing semantics is or what being pedantic means but, sure, ok.

I'm also not trying to convince anyone. I called you out on a false narrative and then provided proof that it was a false narrative. That's it. You made it abundantly clear that you won't admit that it was and that's entirely your prerogative. You can keep on claiming CDPR did you dirty if you want but you also have to accept that people may call you out on it. It's a forum after all.

And the rest of us, the ones that play, actually hope they do listen.

Well, and I'm certain you already know that but it bears repeating for those who may not, you really shouldn't hold out hope for that.

Because why would they? I'm not trying to mock or ridicule your position here. Really, why would they? The game is getting better ratings than it ever did by both the media and the players. The majority is happy with the changes. Why would they reverse changes that have elevated the game's approval to satisfy a minority?

That's not even accounting for the amount of resources they invested in creating/reworking these systems. I can't see them reversing these changes in any significant way at this point.

At best, you can hope for different systems in the next game but again why wouldn't they go with systems that have proven to satisfy more people than they antagonize?

That's not to say they shouldn't listen to/consider negative opinions or valid criticism. They should, obviously. I prefer the new system but it's not without it's flaws and issues and they should at least try to improve their work. That almost goes without saying. I'm certain CDPR is going through the negative feedback too.

They won't be reverting the changes in any significant way though, of that I am certain.

 

[yabab]

Then answer me this: could you create/make/come up with any other build for, say, Power Guns than the ones predetermined by the Perks? One that would even come close - not surpass or even 100% equal - the damage output/effectiveness against enemies?

Up until the point where you could have a highest tier perk unlocked, you CAN do decent - and so, many of the lower tier perks just provide support, not damage. But then, the game starts to expect that you have those insanely high bonuses from the highest tier perks - if you don't, you are screwed.

In games where there are multiple weapon of the same category - so, not just "the pistol for number 1, SMG for number 2, shotgun for number 3, etc." and weapon tiers, not to mention Specials/Uniques/Iconics, there are supposed to have some effect, impact of the decision to go with X weapon instead of Y weapon (Cyberpunk example: why would you use Kongou instead of Seraph? Feel free to put in this example any of the Iconic Pistols/Revolvers). They concentrated so much of the "possibly obtainable" damage into the highest tier perks that - for me at least - anything else is reduced to nuances. You get the perks, you stick with the playstyle they demand and you are done. That's all - there's nothing else. Can you play a Power Pistol using character as anything else then a "Headshot crtitter" ?
Also, in other games, where you can achieve additional damage output in different ways: headshot OR critical damage, damage over time etc. you can - in the good, well built ones - pick perks, items, stat bonuses and so on however you like to focus on one (even more than one, mixing things). You decide, which one and you can go with any of them (effectiveness of course depends on game balance ). Staying at Power Pistols and Revolvers, you can't stray from the headshot path, because you'd loose so much damage, there is no way you could come close to it's effectiveness.

With AR-s and SMG-s, it feels even worse, IMO. You know what you get with most of the perks for those? Better cardio! Many of the perks simply lowers the stamina cost (!) for shooting. They implemented (more like shoehorned in) a problem for the player, which said problem's impact the perks lower - to some degree. It's ridiculous.

The devs didn't lock damage bonuses behind higher level perks, they locked it behind playstyles that come with the perks. No variation. No exploring builds.

That's my problem!

Not the fact that you can't get OP by lvl 5, but the fact that I can ONLY get good decent damage by sticking with the ONE playstyle, with the one skill/perk tree for that weapon category. The game being a challenge IS a good thing. If one can't manage that, tune down the difficulty. If I have to play/grind/farm until lvl 30,40,50 to feel like I'm getting somewhere with my weapon(s) choice(s), build at the time, so be it, as long as I have OPTIONS to get there. I feel like, right now, I don't have any.

That weapons have roles is not only expected, but lore-wise accurate. Which means an improvement in my book.

Different builds actually play different now and players have a reason to play the game over and over again. Experiencing everything it has to offer not only in the story, but also in gameplay. The headshot issue you mentioned is specifically offset by the new vulnerabilities mechanic in the Relic tree.

Not to say I wouldn't change things further in 2077, but the core game is really good for a mass market product.

One can play as one wants provided they're not playing on Very Hard. Very Hard comes with a very explicit and clear flavor text which says the player should not only be familiar with the game's mechanics, but be capable of exploting them. If you're that desperate to use a pistol/revolver as an automatic weapon, there's the Lexington and the Quasar right there.

Also, these insane arguments of "why would you use X instead of Y" scream of a min-maxer mentality which is antithetical to having fun. As Pondsmith himself put it, starting at 54:41:

Mike Pondsmith

DMA LECTURE SERIES AND UCLA GAME LAB SPEAKERMichael Alyn Pondsmith is an American roleplaying, board, and video game designer. He is best known for his work ...

www.youtube.com

"You missed the point!"

 

[Nahoward]

Part of what you're describing with the weapon variation is more of a fallout of having too many skins for basically five different weapons in each category - and also a result of the 1.0 2077 being a giant cluster whereas 2.0 feels like what 1.0 should have been.

Even in the older versions of the game, there were still weapons that were standouts (like Widowmaker). IMO I think removing a lot of the mod slots from weapons really hurt the system, as they basically went from one extreme of the crafted system to the other. THe clothes change, howeve, I think is largely OK since they made cyberware a whole lot more interesting (and something that I have consistently kept going back to Vik throughout the game, rather than seeing specific ripperdocs once to get their special cyberware and calling it a day).

 

[Wragan]

That weapons have roles is not only expected, but lore-wise accurate. Which means an improvement in my book.

Weapons having parts/ways of usage where they are better/more effective is perfectly fine - I have never argued with that. I did, and will, argue that while trying to get rid of the "everything build" problem, they reduced the POSSIBLE ways that a player could use weapons effectively. I would also argue that said better or worse playstyles - for example, a shotgun is better from close range compared to when one would try to use it as a sniper - should come FROM THE WEAPON ITSELF and NOT FROM THE PERKS AFFECTING THEM. Having gameplay changing/altering perks isn't a bad thing in itself, but right now, you can go that way or you will get stuck, period. It will be irrelevant, what weapon you use, how good you are with cover management. movement etc. You will loose so much damage - WHICH THE GAME EXPECTS YOU TO HAVE - that you won't be able to progress.

Different builds actually play different now and players have a reason to play the game over and over again. Experiencing everything it has to offer not only in the story, but also in gameplay. The headshot issue you mentioned is specifically offset by the new vulnerabilities mechanic in the Relic tree.

That replay number will only go as high as much weapon category exists in the game, plus netrunning. If I would think about to replaying the game with Jackie's gun as my main weapon instead of Johnny's (random example), then why would I want to do that if I ALREADY KNOW what I would do with it? (getting headshots)

Not to say I wouldn't change things further in 2077, but the core game is really good for a mass market product.

Well said! That is my problem with it. Mass market product for the lowest common denominator in it's aim, with no place for player creativity, every loose ends gutted out of it.

One can play as one wants provided they're not playing on Very Hard. Very Hard comes with a very explicit and clear flavor text which says the player should not only be familiar with the game's mechanics, but be capable of exploting them.

Please, by all means, share with me, what hardships did you manage to overcome in the game to be able to play on Very Hard? Did you had to click through a linear skill tree? Oh, boy!
I don't have any problem with the highest difficulty being the hardest. I would have nothing else but problems if it wasn't! My problem is that right now, there are linear (!) paths for the possible weapon choices (and this is the current skill tree's fault). There are no perk options, for example. No "Choose one:..." where they could have placed different bonuses for different playstyles within one category.
Or, even better, could have gone with weapon type - melee and ranged - bonuses, and making the weapons themselves the ones to make difference. Or making the skill tree branch later (ranged bonuses first, type bonuses later), for specific bonuses (ones that reward the weapon and not just one playstyle).
Right now, all one to do is click through the relevant skill tree, get a weapon from the relevant category, in relevant rarity and... that's it. Keep distance (when ranged) and don't get shot. What an exciting recipe for replays!

If you're that desperate to use a pistol/revolver as an automatic weapon, there's the Lexington and the Quasar right there.

I have no idea what about my reply seemed like I wanted to use pistols like AR-s, but since you mentioned those: what would switching to those matter? Because of the skill tree and every other things I said before, I would still have to play using those exactly like any other pistol, just with a different shooting rhythm. One of my main point: switching same tier equipment has absolutely no meaning. They are - especially the Iconics - like weapon skins. If they work with the perks you got and of appropriate rarity, then job's done. You did the incredible work of your gameplay the devs set for you to be able to play on very hard difficulty.

Also, these insane arguments of "why would you use X instead of Y" scream of a min-maxer mentality which is antithetical to having fun.

And pointing out those whom you disagree with presumed mentality make me assume you like to play differently. That's fine. I never said the game should be in a way that only people with insane combination and planning skills should be able to play it. I simply point out the fact that absolutely no amount of creativity was left, build wise. The game - through the changes about the skill trees, stat bonuses, attachments - were overly simplified. They could have had easier builds - what we have now - and leave space and options for players who like to combine stuff to see what works and what's not, what is fun and what isn't. Now, there is nothing, just the illusion of player progress and achievement.
Even fricking DIablo 3 had better variability with skill bonuses and gear sets/unique-s, and that was in every possible way a downgrade from Diablo 2 (fine, the cinematics were prettier).

 

[GrimReaper801]

Even fricking DIablo 3 had better variability with skill bonuses and gear sets/unique-s, and that was in every possible way a downgrade from Diablo 2 (fine, the cinematics were prettier).

And Diablo had boobs! How is that not better!?

Not every metric my good sir!

 

[vyvexthorne]

I've enjoyed the changes in 2.0. I like that the game feels different. I was not a fan of the loot system for much of Cyberpunk 2077's life cycle. For much of pre-2.0 you were encouraged to wait until you're high enough in level before looting items, at least if you want legendaries, and that is just frustrating to me.

Hell, if you wanted the crystaljock bomber variants you had to save-scum specific loot containers or enemies, which was absolutely annoying. The crystaljock bomber in my profile pic took so much save scumming in pre-2.0; it was such a pain. It's so much better now that I can walk into a store and just buy the clothing that I want, without worrying about the item's quality for defenses.

Pre-2.0 I would rarely visit a ripper, but now, you're encouraged to see a ripper ever few levels to tinker and upgrade your cyberware. To me, that just feels more immersive.

And netrunning is so damn powerful. When I first started seeing threads when 2.0 launched, people made it seem as if netrunning was gutted. However, to my surprise, not only was it still powerful, but you can still play it silently, not to mention in some regards it feels even more busted.

Yeah, the problem was obviously people trying to play with their old builds (most likely builds that they'd taken from internet videos without investing any time in getting to know the system.) and just whining that those builds didn't work anymore. I started a brand new game and had no problems learning the new system and building a nethacker character. Barely even needed to use guns or stealth and could basically concentrate entirely on the INT tree.

 

[Wragan]

And Diablo had boobs! How is that not better!?

Not every metric my good sir!

True!

Well, at least, Cyberpunk 2077 has HABOOBS!

 

[Bartinga2077]

Wrong thread.

 

[Nixilos]

How it feels to make a build in Cyberpunk 2.0x.

This gun have bad recoil? Bullet spread? Low damage? None of the above?

Before you could target exactly what you liked or didn't like about a weapon with perks and mods, it didn't have to be the best because being the best often just meant you could skip more of the perks in it's category and save them for something else. If you really liked an inferior weapon you could build to make it feel good though.

The feel good part is gone, everything is the same. Take the whole relevant tree, spec the relevant main stat on cyberware. Can't wait to do this again in another playthrough right?

We got square holed.

 

[ozoak]

This notion that the new perks tree overcomes the flattening of gameplay difficulty somehow and introduces replayability is laughable, really.
Why, why would I re-play the game when every encounter is the same difficulty regardless of who/when/where/difficulty-setting?
With 2.0 if you've played it once, you've already experienced every possible challenge (unless you happen to be a masochist who does iron-man runs and deliberately chooses to avoid anything that is helpful), it doesn't matter what weapons/perks you invest in.

I'm not doing a replay just to see the same-ole-same-ole gangoons explode in a slightly different animation using a slightly different saturday-morning cartoon grade finishers.

 

[Orikon25]

Man, I hope the devs are reading this read. You could easily write all this off as a negativity echochamer, but people here make valid points.

 

[Greeniewolf]

I don't think you understand what arguing semantics is or what being pedantic means but, sure, ok.

I'm also not trying to convince anyone. I called you out on a false narrative and then provided proof that it was a false narrative. That's it. You made it abundantly clear that you won't admit that it was and that's entirely your prerogative. You can keep on claiming CDPR did you dirty if you want but you also have to accept that people may call you out on it. It's a forum after all.



Well, and I'm certain you already know that but it bears repeating for those who may not, you really shouldn't hold out hope for that.

Because why would they? I'm not trying to mock or ridicule your position here. Really, why would they? The game is getting better ratings than it ever did by both the media and the players. The majority is happy with the changes. Why would they reverse changes that have elevated the game's approval to satisfy a minority?

That's not even accounting for the amount of resources they invested in creating/reworking these systems. I can't see them reversing these changes in any significant way at this point.

At best, you can hope for different systems in the next game but again why wouldn't they go with systems that have proven to satisfy more people than they antagonize?

That's not to say they shouldn't listen to/consider negative opinions or valid criticism. They should, obviously. I prefer the new system but it's not without it's flaws and issues and they should at least try to improve their work. That almost goes without saying. I'm certain CDPR is going through the negative feedback too.

They won't be reverting the changes in any significant way though, of that I am certain.

Better ratings? Where are you looking? Steam ratings dropped, Gog ratings dropped.... So where are these better ratings?

 

[GrimReaper801]

Man, I hope the devs are reading this read. You could easily write all this off as a negativity echochamer, but people here make valid points.

Oh, I'm sure they do.

But this thread is an echo chamber. Echo chambers don't automatically mean no valid point or useless opinions. There are some valid points here. There also a lot of overly emotional and biased opinions with no real substance behind them and many of them are feeding into each other reinforcing each other's beliefs - that's an echo chamber. It also gives the impression that said opinion is shared by far more people than it actually is.

Thing is, the forum is not a good representation of the gaming community at large. Not even close. There are far better metrics to gauge a game's reception than official forums. Steam's reviews is a really good place to start. Unlike other places, like here or places like metacritic, users need to own the product to leave a review, users are most likely unique and Steam is the biggest platform out there.

Over the last 30 days, the game has consistently earned 5-15x times more positive reviews than it has negative reviews. That's 90% of 22K reviews that are positive BTW. Higher than the game ever got pre-2.0. Today alone, it received 280 positive reviews to 18 negative ones - there wasn't even 280 unique users in this entire thread.

So what are you proposing? That they should listen to a small minority that is unhappy with the changes when the vast majority is fine and even very happy with the changes?

Post automatically merged: Oct 31, 2023

Better ratings? Where are you looking? Steam ratings dropped, Gog ratings dropped.... So where are these better ratings?

See above

So I'll turn your question on you, where are these dropping ratings on Steam?

 

[Greeniewolf]

Oh, I'm sure they do.

But this thread is an echo chamber. Echo chambers don't automatically mean no valid point or useless opinions. There are some valid points here. There also a lot of overly emotional and biased opinions with no real substance behind them and many of them are feeding into each other reinforcing each other's beliefs - that's an echo chamber. It also gives the impression that said opinion is shared by far more people than it actually is.

Thing is, the forum is not a good representation of the gaming community at large. Not even close. There are far better metrics to gauge a game's reception than official forums. Steam's reviews is a really good place to start. Unlike other places, like here or places like metacritic, users need to own the product to leave a review, users are most likely unique and Steam is the biggest platform out there.

Over the last 30 days, the game has consistently earned 5-15x times more positive reviews than it has negative reviews. That's 90% of 22K reviews that are positive BTW. Higher than the game ever got pre-2.0. Today alone, it received 280 positive reviews to 18 negative ones - there wasn't even 280 unique users in this entire thread.

So what are you proposing? That they should listen to a small minority that is unhappy with the changes when the vast majority is fine and even very happy with the changes?

Post automatically merged: Oct 31, 2023

See above

So I'll turn your question on you, where are these dropping ratings on Steam?

It's been steadily dropping ins team ever since 2.1 came out. the negative reviews outweighing the positives. Very easy to see.

 

[GrimReaper801]

It's been steadily dropping ins team ever since 2.1 came out. the negative reviews outweighing the positives. Very easy to see.

Please, show us this very easy to see negative slump.

Cause I can support my argument:

Straight from Steam - last 30 days. Show me a single day where the negative review outweigh the positive ones.

Edit: 2.01 was released on Oct 5, 2023. It's within the 30 days.

 

[Orikon25]

Thing is, the forum is not a good representation of the gaming community at large. Not even close. There are far better metrics to gauge a game's reception than official forums. Steam's reviews is a really good place to start. Unlike other places, like here or places like metacritic, users need to own the product to leave a review, users are most likely unique and Steam is the biggest platform out there.

Oh common now, Steam reviews? Really? People there give both positive and negative reviews for the dumbest of reasons. Sometimes it's memes, sometimes its the latest trend or bandwagon, and occasionally you would get an actual legit, in-depth review.

So what are you proposing? That they should listen to a small minority that is unhappy with the changes when the vast majority is fine and even very happy with the changes?

What is more valuable? 5 good "reviews" which contain either one sentence, a joke, or a meme... or a thread like this, where the reviews/opinions might be predominantly negative but at the very least people elaborate their thoughts and give (mostly) constructive feedback?

 

[ozoak]

But this thread is an echo chamber. Echo chambers don't automatically mean no valid point or useless opinions. There are some valid points here. There also a lot of overly emotional and biased opinions with no real substance behind them and many of them are feeding into each other reinforcing each other's beliefs - that's an echo chamber. It also gives the impression that said opinion is shared by far more people than it actually is.

Respectfully, I disagree. Not with the definition of an echo chamber, that's sufficient enough, but with classifying this thread as one. There have been some good discussions in this thread, and acknowledgements of positives and negatives of the 2.0 update. That immediately invalidates the proposal that this is an echo chamber. Some people with thoughts are not listening to opposing views, but again, individuals not listening within a group that by and large is, isn't an echo chamber, but just individuals being closed minded/short-sighted.

Thing is, the forum is not a good representation of the gaming community at large. Not even close. There are far better metrics to gauge a game's reception than official forums. Steam's reviews is a really good place to start. Unlike other places, like here or places like metacritic, users need to own the product to leave a review, users are most likely unique and Steam is the biggest platform out there.

Over the last 30 days, the game has consistently earned 5-15x times more positive reviews than it has negative reviews. That's 90% of 22K reviews that are positive BTW. Higher than the game ever got pre-2.0. Today alone, it received 280 positive reviews to 18 negative ones - there wasn't even 280 unique users in this entire thread.

So what are you proposing? That they should listen to a small minority that is unhappy with the changes when the vast majority is fine and even very happy with the changes?

Post automatically merged: Oct 31, 2023

There's some merit to this logic, but also a flaw: the recent review activity, whether positive or negative, is indicative for the most part of new owners, which are themselves a smaller subset of overall ownership. We similarly wouldn't want developers listening only to the minority group of new owners, would we?

In my opinion there are no good review metric sites to accommodate something like this, because for a game this is an unusual (not unique) occurrence, where very significant changes are made to a well established product. And I think that's probably the crux of the conflict: this wasn't a minor update, a largely cosmetic or QOL update etc, this was an overhaul. 2.0 and 1.63 are different games. Fundamentals may be similar, of course, I'm not suggesting it went from dystopian cyberpunk to cozy life sim.

Feedback of this breadth, meaning across so many aspects of the game - because so many aspects were changed for 2.0 - should have been dealt with in early playtesting. And it probably was courted, but it feels like too many things don't "mesh" for constructive criticisms to have been taken on board. You have to imagine that the playtesters, at least some of them, would have given the same critiques. Either playtesting didn't occur (which seems improbably, though not impossible), or it did and the criticisms were pushed aside in favour of this new vision for the game (which seems probable, though not ideal).