Lets appreciate the star of the show

+
I will be short and to the point.
I am not obsessed with graphics. these are often misleading. what interests me first in a game is the content and the message {if there is one} that is there.
the graphics for me? one option, obviously if the graphics are jubilant, I would be happy but that's not what tempts me in a game.
a good game is one that touches my heart, my spirit and not my eyes.
 

Guest 3847602

Guest
But a good example, I bought AC Origins & Odyssey just for the open world. I'm not particularly a fan of the license, but I like going from island to island in Odyssey (because I'm not going to lie, in Odyssey, other than walking around to explore/visit, there isn't much thing to do either on the map).
So Night City is far better (for me) than all open world in therm of complexity, size and beauty :)
I have similar feelings about AC Unity. Game still has many issues, but Paris is, for me the 2nd most beautiful open world city ever made (after Night City). I don't even know how many hours I've spend walking around its streets, climbing the buildings and watching its citizens. It feels like the real place, despite not being particularly interactive.
 
It doesn't need to be a corridor. It is actually possible to have nuance and middle ground here. Not everything is a dichotomy between vast open world and corridor shooter.
As much as I love Half Life 2, I don't want to return to that type of linear gaming.

And you'd soon feel 'confined' if you were to follow your suggestion.

I'd like open worlds without limits, as it doesn't feel constricting/borded up, and allows me to roam freely without breaking immersion.
 
I already feel confined by the lack of content in the open world. More space doesn't equal more better.
It depends on the players :)
For me, more interactivity like "mini-games", having a drink in bars or that kind of thing, it's good but once. What I like is exploring and walking around, it's totally impossible without open world :D

As I said for RDR2, I do everything once to "see".
I never spent 2 hours playing poker or simply going to watch the show in St Denis for example.
I have never stolen a cart (except during the quest).
But I spent hours on horseback (from north to south and from south to north) just to walk around and take full eyes.

To quote another game where there is no interactivity in the world, I have already traveled more than 40 thousand blocks on horseback in minecraft just to walk around and see what was further away :(
 
Last edited:
It depends on the players :)
For me, more interactivity like "mini-games", having a drink in bars or that kind of thing, it's good but once. What I like is exploring and walking around, it's totally impossible without open world :D

As I said for RDR2, I do everything once to "see".
I never spent 2 hours playing poker or simply going to watch the show in St Denis for example.
I have never stolen a cart (except during the quest).
But I spent hours on horseback (from north to south and from south to north) just to walk around and take full eyes.

What you say is fair, however, that is just what you do/how you play. Other enjoy doing lots of these sorts of mini games/activities.

People don't tend to complain about "too much" content, but they do complain about the lack of content, especially when you are lead to believe that a game is meant to have immersion at its core.

If a game forces players to play all the side activities and mini games then yes, that would be awful, but just having the option to do so, which doesn't get in the way of the main story, and doesn't effect how players such as yourself like to play, then it would not be a bad thing to have.

To engage in side activities and mini games gives the player the choice to do so and the illusion that there are other things happening in the game around the main character.

On a specific note to CP77, adding a way to make money outside of gigs/missions would seriously help those who want to buy as much as they possibly can. One massive issue I have with the game is the fact that you cannot preview what the clothes will look like on you character, so I've often bought something and though it looks trash, but then that's a waste of money. There's obviously an easy fix to this, but if I knew that I could go out and make more money via gambling or something similar, then I wouldn't have been too bothered by it.
 
What you say is fair, however, that is just what you do/how you play. Other enjoy doing lots of these sorts of mini games/activities.

People don't tend to complain about "too much" content, but they do complain about the lack of content, especially when you are lead to believe that a game is meant to have immersion at its core.

If a game forces players to play all the side activities and mini games then yes, that would be awful, but just having the option to do so, which doesn't get in the way of the main story, and doesn't effect how players such as yourself like to play, then it would not be a bad thing to have.

To engage in side activities and mini games gives the player the choice to do so and the illusion that there are other things happening in the game around the main character.

On a specific note to CP77, adding a way to make money outside of gigs/missions would seriously help those who want to buy as much as they possibly can. One massive issue I have with the game is the fact that you cannot preview what the clothes will look like on you character, so I've often bought something and though it looks trash, but then that's a waste of money. There's obviously an easy fix to this, but if I knew that I could go out and make more money via gambling or something similar, then I wouldn't have been too bothered by it.
Yep, I didn't say that would be bad, because honestly I would welcome anything CDPR wants to add with open arms :D
But Night City itself (the environment/architecture), not to mention what it contains as an activity/interactivity, is a pure work of art (for me).
That's why I cited RDR2, because in a totally different style (to which I'm less sensitive), Damn it's gorgeous too...
 
I don't want to start a fight here, and I love to walk/drive around Night City – but it doesn't stay interesting for long.
Interactivity is really missing. I can spend way more "time in the city" in games like the Yakuza games (or Judgment) although the city is much smaller. But at least you get to do different things – like disco dancing in Yakuza Zero or Gambling or Karaoke. Just imagine doing a Karaoke minigame in Cyberpunk with its cool soundtrack...

So, to me, Night City is a star, but CDPR just booked them to be looked at, but the city's not allowed to sing.
 
I will be short and to the point.
I am not obsessed with graphics. these are often misleading. what interests me first in a game is the content and the message {if there is one} that is there.
the graphics for me? one option, obviously if the graphics are jubilant, I would be happy but that's not what tempts me in a game.
a good game is one that touches my heart, my spirit and not my eyes.
While graphics definitly help in conveying the message, they arent the focus. If if someone was playing on a lower end PC or a console they will see the city, the way its presented to the player. They'll be able to walk or drive through it and see both the façade aswell as whats behind it, make you think about it. Some people in this topic talked a bit too much about graphics.

Even if it was made with graphics from a five year old game, I would still say the same; if this was a real city I wouldnt want to live there. I wouldnt even go there as a tourist unless I could hire a dozen of my own countries special forces to act as bodyguards. Its beautiful and horrible at the same time.
 
I felt that Night City was made to be only a background for the story. I supposed that the city would be the game, not simply a background for the game.
The city was well made with lot of detail and includes spatial storytelling. Works well for its purpose.
Nothing against the game, but few people had initial misconceptions. Expected a open world like in Fallout.
I see that the discussion here is unsolvable, due to difference between the purpose of gaming, and the duality of immersion vs challenge. Sorry if I am wrong.
I believe that the main purpose is the challenge, using an immersion to give a sense of existence/motivation for the challenge. I will stop by now, because philosophical concepts are joining the discussion :shrug:
 
It depends on the players :)
For me, more interactivity like "mini-games", having a drink in bars or that kind of thing, it's good but once. What I like is exploring and walking around, it's totally impossible without open world :D
Not talking about mini games. I'm talking about actual open world content like dungeons, random encounters, radiant events, side quests.

I've said it a hundred times and I'll say it again, the open world "content" in cyberpunk is 90% filler. Kill random enemies standing around outside and then read a shard at the end. If you like that, fine, but some people have higher standards.
 
Not talking about mini games. I'm talking about actual open world content like dungeons, random encounters, radiant events, side quests.

I've said it a hundred times and I'll say it again, the open world "content" in cyberpunk is 90% filler. Kill random enemies standing around outside and then read a shard at the end. If you like that, fine, but some people have higher standards.
Me, who thought we were talking about the city itself and not "the content", maybe I'm wrong :(
So even with nothing to do in Night City, I would still find it amazing and beautiful. So pretty "low standard", if you wish ;)
 

Guest 3847602

Guest
Not talking about mini games. I'm talking about actual open world content like dungeons, random encounters, radiant events, side quests.

I've said it a hundred times and I'll say it again, the open world "content" in cyberpunk is 90% filler. Kill random enemies standing around outside and then read a shard at the end. If you like that, fine, but some people have higher standards.
No, they don't have higher standards, but different preferences. Random encounters and radiant anything is boring filler to me. They literally exists to inflate playtime through repetition.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
That's what I did. I ditched the story as fast as possible and started exploring the available part of the city. I noticed the shortcomings very quickly. Disappearing and reappearing people and vehicles. No motorcycles actually driving through the city. Missing models and/or textures. Very poor LOD and distant objects, made of as few polygons as possible, making the city in the distance look like it's made of cardboard. Textures and objects loading right in front of me. The crowds and vehicles AI not being able to handle the simplest of tasks. Buildings made of the same models and textures tretched or deformed, especially AC units and vents on the buildings. Buildings positioned in ways causing windows to merge half way into fasades of other buildings. 2D, poorly animated traffic in the distance. Terribly low framerate adds and tv programms. All the technical glitches.


I was very thorough. I saw it all. I regret I havent been taking any screenshots. If you didn't see any graphical shortcomings, I don't think you were exploring carefully enough. I did. That's what I do. I look at every single texture, every single model. I walk away, I look from a distance, I look through a zoom. I take note of graphical fidelity because I love all those small little details. And I hate seeing that the details I'm looking for are simply not there.


The game looks good at times. ***AT TIMES***
When the light is just right. When it's night time and you can't see too far. When there is fog or rain that obscures visibility even more. When you are in a story-important location.


I played dozens of games. Hundreds. This one is not the prettiest. Great artstyle. Terrible execution full of imperfections. Quantity over quality with rushed production and technical downgrade on top.
So you're just troll because once you've said, and it was not long time ago, you've played like 2 hours, anyway thanks for your opinion full of expertise.
 
Yes indeed! I played barely two hours, how perceptive of you, well done!! :D
It would be great though if you noticed that I was talking about checking out the Patch 1.23


Since release in December 2020 I wondered around Watson for total of 93 hours and 37 minutes. I finished all the gigs and got to a point in the story where I talked to some lady in the brothel or whatever. I don't want to remember the story until I play the finished version of the game. My point is-- I've seen enough to have a good idea of what the game actually looks like. And I doubt that all the technical problems of Cyberpunk magically disappear after the prologue.


Cyberpunk was very unlucky, as I started playing it very shortly after I finished Horizon Zero Dawn and Death Stranding. Both games are way above the level of Cyberpunk when it comes to quality. Both were released with various technical issues that got fixed in less than 6 months. I know because I waited for them to be fixed first. That's how I like to play my games-- when they're finished.


What I don't understand is people who play Cyberpunk over and over as if it was MMO or Live Service. Especially that the game receives patches every blue moon, the roadmap is a farse and CDPR themselves admitted that they haven't even started implementing "perceived quality" improvements yet! Playing Cyberpunk now would be like watching a sci-fi movie but without special effects implemented yet and with film set during construction. Sure, the story is already there and the actors are already playing their lines but that's simply not the full experience. That's the post-release behind-the-scenes material! I don't want to see that BEFORE I watched the movie!
 
Last edited:
Yes indeed! I played barely two hours, how perceptive of you, well done!! :D
It would be great though if you noticed that I was talking about checking out the Patch 1.23


Since release in December 2020 I wondered around Watson for total of 93 hours and 37 minutes. I finished all the gigs and got to a point in the story where I talked to some lady in the brothel or whatever. I don't want to remember the story until I play the finished version of the game. My point is-- I've seen enough to have a good idea of what the game actually looks like. And I doubt that all the technical problems of Cyberpunk magically disappear after the prologue.


Cyberpunk was very unlucky, as I started playing it very shortly after I finished Horizon Zero Dawn and Death Stranding. Both games are way above the level of Cyberpunk when it comes to quality. Both were released with various technical issues that got fixed in less than 6 months. I know because I waited for them to be fixed first. That's how I like to play my games-- when they're finished.


What I don't understand is people who play Cyberpunk over and over as if it was MMO or Live Service. Especially that the game receives patches every blue moon, the roadmap is a farse and CDPR themselves admitted that they haven't even started implementing "perceived quality" improvements yet! Playing Cyberpunk now would be like watching a sci-fi movie but without special effects implemented yet and with film set during construction. Sure, the story is already there and the actors are already playing their lines but that's simply not the full experience. That's the post-release behind-the-scenes material! I don't want to see that BEFORE I watched the movie!
I'm sorry but just running around Watson for so many hours could bore you to death and I don't think that watching youtube videos and reading comments can give you the answer to why some people keep coming back to the game and replay it.
 
Ah, yes. I haven't played enough to fully understand the game, AND I played too much and got bored of it. Please choose one or another.
 
No, they don't have higher standards, but different preferences. Random encounters and radiant anything is boring filler to me. They literally exists to inflate playtime through repetition.
Then you must find the game as it is to be boring filler. The majority of the open-world content is no different from "random" encounters, except they're hard-coded to the same location and never change. Adding random encounters on top of that would only provide more opportunities for combat and roleplay that simply do not exist in the game right now.

It's also interesting how you completely ignored the fact that I said "dungeons" first, and lasered in on the one thing you disagreed with.

Me, who thought we were talking about the city itself and not "the content", maybe I'm wrong :(
I'm not sure how you got confused. There has been a very clear line of discussion up till now, and it seemed like you were keeping up. Then suddenly you aren't.

The OP suggested that people who think the game should be more linear didn't explore the city. I responded that I did explore the city, and the lack of open world content was a factor in my opinion that the game shouldn't be open world. Are you telling me that you lost that thread at some point? Very interesting.

To be 100% clear, I prefer open world games. Ideally, Cyberpunk would just have a better open world. HOWEVER. Given the game that was delivered, I believe would have been far more effective as a focused and linear story, since that was obviously where all the care and effort went. I think if CDPR hadn't spread their resources so thin trying to build Night City brick for brick, everyone would have been more satisfied with the end product.

In a perfect world, they could have achieved both, but that apparently wasn't in the cards.
 

Guest 3847602

Guest
Then you must find the game as it is to be boring filler. The majority of the open-world content is no different from "random" encounters, except they're hard-coded to the same location and never change. Adding random encounters on top of that would only provide more opportunities for combat and roleplay that simply do not exist in the game right now.
If you're talking about NCPD scanner hustles, they do have stories to them told through the environmental storytelling and area changes after clearing them of enemies. Example:
It's also interesting how you completely ignored the fact that I said "dungeons" first, and lasered in on the one thing you disagreed with.
That's because I have no idea what the dungeons (or dragons) have to do with the game set in futuristic world.
 
Top Bottom