Speaking of weather, I have zero changes through 25 hours in my new playthrough 100% through Watson.
All my playthroughs were like that, regardless of the patch version.
High end PC.
Speaking of weather, I have zero changes through 25 hours in my new playthrough 100% through Watson.
All my playthroughs were like that, regardless of the patch version.
High end PC.
Well. It's rare, yes. It doesn't happen each day/night cycle, as far as I noticed. Is it random, though? Would also like to know..
E.g. I was once waiting for the rocket to take off - it was clear, then it started raining, then the acid rain took over all in like 15min.
but it's a good spot to watch (some sort of bridge in the area)Well. It's rare, yes. It doesn't happen each day/night cycle, as far as I noticed. Is it random, though? Would also like to know..
E.g. I was once waiting for the rocket to take off - it was clear, then it started raining, then the acid rain took over all in like 15min.
View attachment 11274235 View attachment 11274238 View attachment 11274241... and ofc couldn't see, if the damn rocket took off, or not in the end
Rare is an understatement for me. I saw maybe 5, max 10 weather changes in around 150 hours. Zero before Watson is over. That can not be what they intended.
From an art design standpoint I think they deserve a ton of credit, even if the city doesn't quite feel immersive enough for me. I was following dev progress from the early days and them describing their vision- something brash, Tarantino-esque, dystopian but colorful and in your face - I mean they nailed it.
I still feel immersed... in bugs, glitches and performance issues on console. Even on my new Series S. Sounds like a patch might be incoming soon though, if what I've heard on YouTube is true (a huge pinch of salt at the best of times, but still more believable that whatever CDPR says on the issue). I've deleted all my saves again right now and I'm waiting for the next-gen upgrade, (probably won't check it if the update is just the 1.5 patch and not the upgrade, I'll wait) if it's still bad after that, I'm over it and won't touch any more of their games - probably won't even if it is fixed tbh.
Yes that I obvious ..
But an actual Character vs Camera Operator, a character is a better choice imo, i.e. Geralt > V
Post automatically merged:
Why should you show how V is feeling, where/when is your's which are important...?
I don't know, that's the goal... If you're not "happy" with Judy (for example), V is not happy. If you hate Johnny, V hate Johnny... It make no sense to "show" V's feelings
And it's only my opinion, but in Bethesda games, there is no emotion/feelings, never. They tried to add third person dialogues in Fallout4, but unfortunately, it doesn't work too...
Well that's the problem isn't it. V is just a vessel for the player, or a camera operator, yet the game also wants V to be a character, and as a player you cannot do what you want in many parts of the game. Its almost like the game wants to have its cake and eat it.
At best, V is not better than a FO4 character since you are that character in FO4 too, its voiced, limited dialog options and feels soulless
An actual character like Geralt is far more compelling that a blank like V. V should have been made as a fully developed character, something akin to what is seen in the 48min Gameplay Trailer. There V had custscenes, and did things of her own accord such as bringing that dude back for a one night stand, its was setting V up with some characteristics.
Just my opinion too
Last edited:
It's just weird to me to think that Cyberpunk could be more "immersive" (or at least to be more immersed in the world) if there were cinematics (or gameplay) in third person. Third person and "immersive" really don't match together, in my opinion
I think it works pretty well in Mass effect and Last of Us does it as well. I think it depends on how it is told and executed, it can be very good at telling a story if done correctly. But I don't think it is a requirement, to me the biggest immersion breaker in the game is still that the city or NPCs feel more like robots, that there are no random RPG nonsense stuff to do.It's just weird to me to think that Cyberpunk could be more "immersive" (or at least to be more immersed in the world) if there were cinematics (or gameplay) in third person. Third person and "immersive" really don't match together, in my opinion
I rep-play ME-LE not long ago and currently TW3.
Is it great ? Yes, for sure. Am I more immersed ? Certainly not. (which is totally my personal opinion)
Because I'm not Shepard or Geralt, I feel "outside" and only control them. Exploring Novigrad (or the citadel) would be a such different experience in first person (or better in VR), for sure (and more immersive)
I agree with you on that. I can get immersed in the story, much like I can when watching a movie, but I don't feel like im the actor on the screen. But for me a lot of this comes from being given a character rather than making your own. I much more prefer to make my own as I like them and how I want them to be played, rather than Geralt which already comes with a lot of ways of how he sees or think one should interact or react to things.I rep-play ME-LE not long ago and currently TW3.
Is it great ? Yes, for sure. Am I more immersed ? Certainly not. (which is totally my personal opinion)
Because I'm not Shepard or Geralt, I feel "outside" and only control them. Exploring Novigrad (or the citadel) would be a such different experience in first person (or better in VR), for sure (and more immersive)
But were V, my own character and you had small cutscenes like when you eat or like Jackie and V in the gameplay trailer when they go in the elevator etc. that would work well for me at least.
I guess it will be very wise in a future to continue development of 2 IP`s where Witcher is 3rd person premade character and CP is make as 1st person custom creation like right now. Both cases have some friends and foes but feels like its most optimal option to put first/third person ideas where they fits the most.
What CP is missing is not that much of cutscenes but lack of apperance of V during normal game mode - mirror and general reflections, rear view mirror in cars etc. Unfortunalety those are too resource demanding so we wont be able to see them for a next couple of years.
What CP is missing is not that much of cutscenes but lack of apperance of V during normal game mode - mirror and general reflections, rear view mirror in cars etc. Unfortunalety those are too resource demanding so we wont be able to see them for a next couple of years.
I'd reverse that personally and have CP as the third person game since the character is created by the player - makes much more sense to me to able to actually see a character you've created than a pre-made that you've been given.
I felt very immersed, yes. I'm lucky to get easily immersed and one of the scariest gaming moments I can remember was actually in a 2D roguelike Tales of Maj'Eyal (it's free, so give it a try). During the final fight my heart was racing like having zero tolerance and smoking some serious weed.
But did you try ordering a drink in ME2? Muh immersionI rep-play ME-LE not long ago and currently TW3.
Is it great ? Yes, for sure. Am I more immersed ? Certainly not. (which is totally my personal opinion)
Because I'm not Shepard or Geralt, I feel "outside" and only control them. Exploring Novigrad (or the citadel) would be a such different experience in first person (or better in VR), for sure (and more immersive)
ME1 was one of the most immersive games I've ever played, but that due to phenomenal worldbuilding and characters, not TPP. Fictional universe felt real, that's what I consider immersive. Same thing with Cyberpunk.
I don't think perspective has really anything to do with immersion, unless the game wants you to be the character (and this is not the case for 99.99% of games, cyberpunk included, where you're controlling V, a bland but predetermined character ). IMHO immersion comes from how believable a game world is, meaning how much suspension of disbelief it requires to the player to feel like that world really exists. Apart from personal experiences, some games are objectively more immersive than others, and game design plays a major role in it. It can't be just good graphics and art. Again, personal skill to ignore some things apart.
Anyway, I love how every discussion about immersion immediately turns in a discussion about camera perspective. A couple of posts more and someone will ask for TPP and praise the mods who added it to the game (with awful results)
Anyway, I love how every discussion about immersion immediately turns in a discussion about camera perspective. A couple of posts more and someone will ask for TPP and praise the mods who added it to the game (with awful results)
Last edited:
For me at least the issue with a TW first person, is not because I couldn't get immersed etc. I definitely could. But I don't think FP melee in general works well. I don't like it in Skyrim, CP or Fallout. Even if you can block and stuff like that, it just always feel to chaotic and without the impact you would expect. Sort of like watching some kids bashing each other with foam weapons just swinging them wildly in front of them and hoping for the best
I think TW3 handles it well, I do like the combat in the newer AC more, but that is just personal choice I guess. But until someone figures out to do interesting FP close combat, I prefer all fantasy games to be 3rd person due to that reason alone.
There's immersion and engagement. I can be 100% engaged in Tetris or an RTS without "being there" - i.e. immersed. And that's fine. A good engagement is superior to immersion for me. I am less immersed in Witcher 3 than I am in Mass Effect, but I am more engaged with Witcher 3 by far.
Night City as V was very immersive. I felt like I was there. This does have the side-effect of, yes, making V less defined than Geralt, for example, and it's not about the camera necessarily: If "you" are there, or the character you created with less detail is there, then there is a bit of disconnection from the otherwise rich world. Playing a character that is strongly built for the setting helps, but is easy to lose connection with unless constantly reinforced, as Geralt the Witcher is.
In short, Geralt fit into the world of Witcher 3, but I do not fit into the world of Night City. I am a visitor. I think this doesn't make Night City less immersive at all, but it does make it less believable, for some.
Night City as V was very immersive. I felt like I was there. This does have the side-effect of, yes, making V less defined than Geralt, for example, and it's not about the camera necessarily: If "you" are there, or the character you created with less detail is there, then there is a bit of disconnection from the otherwise rich world. Playing a character that is strongly built for the setting helps, but is easy to lose connection with unless constantly reinforced, as Geralt the Witcher is.
In short, Geralt fit into the world of Witcher 3, but I do not fit into the world of Night City. I am a visitor. I think this doesn't make Night City less immersive at all, but it does make it less believable, for some.
Anyway, I love how every discussion about immersion immediately turns in a discussion about camera perspective. A couple of posts more and someone will ask for TPP and praise the mods who added it to the game (with awful results)
Every single one of these conversation diverges on TPP because the bottom line is that immersion means entirely different things to different people. It is a highly subjective thing. Everyone experiences it differently.
There are some core principles, guidelines if you will, that everybody agrees on but in the end trying to stick a definitive definition on "immersion" is both impossible and wrong. For some people TPP is required, for others it's not. For some it's all about graphics. For some it's all about story, regardless of everything around it. Some will require activities in an open world. The list goes on.
TPP just happens to be a very popular aspect of it. Personally I don't care much about it. I'd be happy if we could get the option to switch between the two as I prefer to fight in 1st person but prefer traveling in 3rd but I don't require it. It's different perspective for different people experiencing things differently. There is no wrong or right here.
Visually and audibly the game does a good job in the… uh, ”immersion” sector.
Could do better with a bit more ambience; distant sounds, commercials, gun fire, sirens, people noises (shouting, screams, quarrelling, etc).
And could do greatly better with gameplay ambience. Interactivity and skillchecks. With the random NPCs, the world and the objects. And even where it was of no immediate earth shattering consequence.
Could do better with a bit more ambience; distant sounds, commercials, gun fire, sirens, people noises (shouting, screams, quarrelling, etc).
And could do greatly better with gameplay ambience. Interactivity and skillchecks. With the random NPCs, the world and the objects. And even where it was of no immediate earth shattering consequence.
It may diverge on game mechanics, it may diverge on art design... But no, those appear from time to time while in 100% of the cases you see "tpp Vs fpp".
And yes, I said there's a big subjective component in immersion, but also objective
Post automatically merged:
You probably don't / won't like it but the interaction with NPCs in rdr2 is top notch.
Last edited: