Cyberpunk 2077 Teaser Trailer

+
DOESN'T MAKE YOU LESS A FILTHY TRAITOR THOUGH! BRING FORTH THE CYBER PYRE! TO THE NANO SPIT WITH YOU! YOUR FLESH SHALL TASTE AS PUMPKIN AND PEPPERMINT! Etc.

And you wonder why nobody trusts you.
 
RageGT? Whoa, talk about a blast from the past. Where did you disappear to? Don't you know that forum members aren't allowed to have lives outside of the forum?
Yeah, but believe me, life outside of these forums kinda... sux! I still have to live through it though. lol I'll be around anyway! =))
 
There are people who show their games and development process more or less openly (EA or YouTube) and to be honest this convinces me more than what CDPR does with TW3, releasing teasers or E3 videos and interviews. Because teasers aren't showing how the game is being made, what the game really is and how it plays once you're running it on your own PC. That's why I don't think "it's early development" is convincing argument not to show something anymore. It's just policy (and their right at the same time) how they make games.

I watched video with some combat - something of interest to me that I could evaluate - and I didn't feel combat in TW3 to be interesting enough, despite claims. Maybe I need to watch more than combat on easy difficulty, but it's up to CDPR to disclose more videos about specific gameplay mechanics. To be frank TW3 isn't even on my to-buy list (big question mark hovers above it), while games like LT made it to convince me in a very short period of time after getting to know them. LT is also supposed to have a demo for those who want to try it before committing to buying game. All this despite a lot of YouTube development videos, dev logs on forums and detailed descriptions what game is supposed to offer. CDPR is the friendliest big developer out there I know of, but they has been outclassed by a one man, who isn't wasting his energy to make teasers to build hype around his game.

My point is this teaser doesn't even look like it's part of the game. It might be showing people what game is supposed to look like and give some clues to those who know the setting, but just as in great cinematics in TW3's teaser - there is no substance. Because we won't play the game with cinematic-like graphic. Ultimately we will play outside of Hollywood-like style of teasers and this is my biggest objection. We aren't playing a movie. We don't even want a movie. We want a game.

I have CP77 on my list, because I am interested in their promises and know that they do make good games. In short, I have hope and they hold promise (even with all my skepticism). However, I am not going to make a blind buy on teasers, fame, convictions or promises alone. I am waiting for them to show that what they cook is really good and suits my taste. Then I will buy it for full price and won't regret it.

I'm guessing you missed out on TW2 from the sounds of it. Not to late :p
 
You're guessing wrong. What gave you that idea?


Probably this line?

There are people who show their games and development process more or less openly (EA or YouTube) and to be honest this convinces me more than what CDPR does with TW3, releasing teasers or E3 videos and interviews. Because teasers aren't showing how the game is being made, what the game really is and how it plays once you're running it on your own PC. That's why I don't think "it's early development" is convincing argument not to show something anymore. It's just policy (and their right at the same time) how they make games.

Those of us who've played Witcher 2 typically have more faith in CDPR promises than that paragraph would indicate. We don't need more info or open development process to convince us that the REDs know what they are doing and that their trailers are pretty representative of the quality of the final game. The quality of the trailer, the themes it represents, the obvious care that went into it are as, or more, indicative of the final game quality than five minutes of Iwin running around on horseback smiting some drowners.

It is for me, anyway.
 
Those of us who've played Witcher 2 typically have more faith in CDPR promises than that paragraph would indicate.
I read what happened to monster hunting feature. It basically went back to bombs and oils in combat and "disable some monster abilities by detective work/reading books". In light of these changes I find my skepticism in promises validated. It's sad, because I was interested in expanding monster hunter part of the game.

We don't need more info or open development process to convince us that the REDs know what they are doing [...]
REDs are people. People aren't infallible, so my faith in them is limited.

[...] and that their trailers are pretty representative of the quality of the final game.
I think you've missed the point. Teasers might "be pretty representative of the quality of the final game" - not really sure what you mean by this... that final game will look the same as teasers? I am placing bet on the cape - but they aren't showing gameplay in the works and that's ultimately more important.
 
I didn't suggest that CDPR was infallible. I don't require infallibility for faith in people - that would make faith pretty worthless, wouldn't it, if no one screwed up?

REDs know what they are doing, so my faith in their skillset - faith being a belief in something not immediately or currently present - tells me that I need not worry. I don't need for them to demonstrate to my satisfaction - they did that in Witcher 2. Witcher 1, actually.

"The quality of the trailer, the themes it represents, the obvious care that went into it are as, or more, indicative of the final game quality than five minutes of Iwin running around on horseback smiting some drowners."

That seemed pretty clear to me. A careful craftsman produces good work. I do not need to see how he works on his current chair or house to know that his next chair or house will show the same care. The craftsmanship evinced in the trailer was sufficient to convince me CDPR is fully invested in Cyberpunk.

That trust in previous products and that evidence of current investment is much, much more important than some glimpse of alpha or beta gameplay.
 
You're correct. My point is that the whole concept of faith is purposeless and serves no function. REDs know they craft - they know how to make games - but that's how far I can go with this statement. Craftmanship alone does not indicate anything. I will make it clear: I don't doubt their investment in Cyberpunk. But that alone means little, because what matters is the outcome of their investment - the game, gameplay and such. You can put trust in them and in their abilities, but at the point in time when you start playing trust becomes meaningless, because you have to deal with reality and what you have got before you. Will you then tell me that actual gameplay is secondary to investment?
 
The E3 demos were very much gameplay in progress footage as is the upcoming SDCC 30 minute footage.

In my case I was more than satisfied with the E3 demos they gave us. They showed everything I wanted to see, parts of the story, parts of the exploring and parts of combat. Then taking my knowledge of their previous works was satisfied with the work they had done. The interviews were just as telling and yes they mentioned a few changes they made to the system that sound suspicious and in my opinion needs more clarification on how they will actually function (potions) but that isn't anywhere close to a deal breaker. For the main reasons I enjoy The Witcher games looked absolutely remarkable in TW3.

Even before that though I had very little to doubt in CDPR being able to deliver and they very clearly stated when they would begin showing us more information which they are now delivering from E3 and every other convention until release. Which I think is appropriate because most games that are over advertised I lose all interest in (look at Watch Dogs, never bought it and don't care to get it nor Dragon Age inquisition for that matter)
 
The E3 demos were very much gameplay in progress footage as is the upcoming SDCC 30 minute footage.
I thought the discussion was about trailers not showing the actual gameplay? E3 demos were what allowed me to get a peek of combat and monster hunting parts of the game (trailers and teasers were simply not concrete enough for me to get the idea how it works) and no amount of faith or craftmanship changes the fact that it ain't to my liking, so I am not buying the same argument about CP77, because no trailer is going to show us how gameplay works in practice until we see video showing us how gameplay works. That's what I wanted to say.
 
Craftmanship alone does not indicate anything.

Well.

Hmmm.


Yes, yes it totally does. Quite a lot of things. Maybe all of the things, when it comes to,you know, crafting things.

The concept of faith has very much a function. Our entire economic system as it is currently rendered depends on it. Yes. So there's that. And in the case of CDPR, things like preorders and stock value depend on it.

Your consumer caution is a good idea, but it's hardly the only idea, always the wisest idea or even necessarily a useful idea. In this case, it's helping you not be hyped? Or not preorder and make a prettttty damn good bet the game will be good? I dunno. Gameplay trailers are not that useful either, frankly. Lot of disappointed Thief and Watch Dogs players will tell you that.

In summary, no, we don't need gameplay trailers. That's a facet of some kinds of modern media. You've become accustomed to a particular advertising approach and now consider it necessary before making a decision. It's really not.

Of course, it would be even less relevant if a) there were demos and b)you could easily return an unsatisfactory product, but, sadly this is rarely the case. Different discussion.

Craftmanship alone does not indicate anything.

Heh. I'm gonna be grinning about that line for awhile. Thanks!
 
I thought the discussion was about trailers not showing the actual gameplay? E3 demos were what allowed me to get a peek of combat and monster hunting parts of the game (trailers and teasers were simply not concrete enough for me to get the idea how it works) and no amount of faith or craftmanship changes the fact that it ain't to my liking, so I am not buying the same argument about CP77, because no trailer is going to show us how gameplay works in practice until we see video showing us how gameplay works. That's what I wanted to say.

I thought we were talking about trailers in general am I mistaken?

So TEASER trailers are as they say just teasers, I never take teasers as any indication of what the product will be like but more of a confirmation that said game is in the works, you can get the idea of themes and story elements from the teasers but that's about it. It is the information that comes after the teaser that makes me decide whether it is worth putting on my radar or not. Knowing the studio's reputation is good enough as well at this point. The real deciding comes later when you see the game in action. At this point my previous comment comes into play. There isn't much else I can say regarding teasers, they are just to tease you after all and make you interested.
 
Last edited:
Yes, yes it totally does. Quite a lot of things. Maybe all of the things, when it comes to,you know, crafting things.
You're missing out the most important part - the crafted thing. I am really not interested in their skill as much as I am interested in how they'll put these skills to use. They can create a good game, but it might not suit me, meaning it'll be of less value to me than a good game that suits me. There is an important difference between the two, because it allows me to prioritize my purchases.

The concept of faith has very much a function. Our entire economic system as it is currently rendered depends on it. Yes. So there's that. And in the case of CDPR, things like preorders and stock value depend on it.
I think I was precise enough when I described why I consider faith baseless in this particular argument. It has nothing to do with economic system nor with pre-orders. You're talking about something entirely different than I.

Gameplay trailers are not that useful either, frankly. Lot of disappointed Thief and Watch Dogs players will tell you that.

In summary, no, we don't need gameplay trailers. That's a facet of some kinds of modern media. You've become accustomed to a particular advertising approach and now consider it necessary before making a decision. It's really not.
You mean you don't need gameplay trailers.

It's not about advertising as such. It's about seeing game in action, because that's usually what you do with games - you play them, meaning you use gameplay provided by the developers to interact with them. It has less to do with advertising than trailers and teasers that you find sufficient. Trailers and teasers are specifically crafted to be more impressive than standard gameplay of the same game you're bound to play. It's main reason why I am much less interested in trailers and teasers and focus on gameplay. That's the difference between our approaches.

Sure, I will take demo over everything else, but demos are scarce resource nowadays, because it's much easier to make a good looking trailer or teaser rather than present game itself.

Heh. I'm gonna be grinning about that line for awhile. Thanks!
Grin as much as you like. It's telling more about you than it's saying about me.

So TEASER trailers are as they say just teasers, I never take teasers as any indication of what the product will be like but more of a confirmation that said game is in the works, you can get the idea of themes and story elements from the teasers but that's about it.
...which is exactly the reason why I am waiting for something more concrete - like gameplay - to be presented.
 
...which is exactly the reason why I am waiting for something more concrete - like gameplay - to be presented.

Which is fine, because by the time that pre-orders are available, there should also be gameplay videos available. Because that's the first time you'll be in a position to make an actual decision on whether or not to hand over any money, or at least make some kind of commitment to buy. I agree that it needs more than just trailers by then, because they don't tell you how the game will actually play.

But until the day that pre-orders are announced, it's simply the way they do things, choosing not to show partly-finished work, not to show things that may not reflect the final game. As you say, their choice.
 
Last edited:
I like to think I "learned my lesson" on teaser-trailers/advertising in general when at the age of about 7 or 8 I spend my own hard earned money for a game I'd seen on TV commercials only to find out 15 minutes after getting it home I'd fallen prey to "hype".
While I'll get excited over the prospect of a game, or games by certain developers based on their reputation, with few exceptions I don't actually buy anything until AFTER their release and a few YouTubes showing actual gameplay are out. Case in point Elder Scrolls Online, I was looking forward to this but now that I've seen it in play I'm not gonna waste a penny on it.

As others have said Teaser-trailers don't need to show actual gameplay, that's not their purpose. Besides 99.9% of the time they're made so early in the development process no one can say for what actual gameplay is going to be like.
 
@Safe-r I've been thinking for a while since you said it, how come your gonna pass on The Witcher 3 when you went for The Witcher 2? The two games look similar enough gameplay wise. I mean it's fine of course but I'm just curious.
 
Last edited:
TW2 wasn't all that great game gameplay wise to me (I am not going to list them all here though, for clarity's sake), so it's not helping TW3 that the two are similar to one another. Monster hunting feature is being reduced as the original scope proved to be too ambitious for implementation and combat - a major part of the game - will not be changed enough to be more interesting to me. There is still the idea of an open world that react to you that I like (still didn't see it in action though), but overall the more I see or hear, the less I am excited about TW3 (and I wasn't excited about TW2, because I played TW1). I am not saying I won't buy it (I doubt it'll regress as much as ME series did*). I'll be more likely to buy it later.

Same might happen to CP77, because a lot hinges on how they want to develop it - despite their skills, I am not denying them having them - and I didn't hear strong "yes" and "no" as of yet. On the opposite end, I am certain to buy HoI4 on the release, because Paradox has revealed their development idea standing behind HoI4 and it strikes very close to what I hoped the series to become since I started to play HoI. Trailers? Teasers? I would settle for a nice Developer's Diary with a screenshot. Or two. I find it more convincing, but it goes down to how each developer studio wishes to approach their inside intel (such as game development). I respect CDPR's choice, although I don't like it, as Dragonbird said.

We shall see what future has in store for us. Until then I am not crossing CP77 out of my list.

* I mean, comparing 2 (that I liked) with the 3, which was supposed to be more like 1 (that I disliked. Strongly).
 
Top Bottom