E3 2019 & post-E3 2019 - Media News & Previews

+
Status
Not open for further replies.
Somebody didn’t watch the 45-minute gameplay video of the Witcher 3.

You mean the first 45 minutes of gameplay that was shown about a month before release? That was pretty much after that "final cut''.

That would give Cyberpunk 2077 about five more months until the next online-public showing. But i personally don't think it's going to take that long until we see the game, again.
 
For Cyberpunk, just speculating here, but I'm guessing we're in for some major twists and turns. I imagine it may be like The Usual Suspects: there's actually very little about that plot that you can share without completely destroying the ending.
I honestly think it's more likely they want to avoid complaints for driving and combat which would decrease sales and pre-orders and try to improve them as much as possible before showing the game one month-ish before release. They have no problems in spoiling the story, as demonstrated from the E3 CGI (jackie hurt/killed and dex's betrayal), the deep dive demo (which has little gameplay and spoils placide's betrayal) and by the fact they let journalists and influencers say as much as they wanted about what happens in the demo.
 
Somebody didn’t watch the 45-minute gameplay video of the Witcher 3.

Of course I did. And what did that gameplay demo reveal about character, plot, twists and turns, or anything that would compromise the experience? I'll bring up again story arcs like The Usual Suspects, Inception, The Sixth Sense, Arrival... There's simply no way to give a good indication of "what it's about" or "how it works" without spoiling the story. I can show a lot of action scenes for an action film. I can share a lot of jokes for a comedy. I can detail exactly what a documentary is about. All without spoiling the energy of the piece. Can't do that for stories that rely heavily on surprising the audience. Give away one wrong detail, and people may figure it out.


I honestly think it's more likely they want to avoid complaints for driving and combat which would decrease sales and pre-orders and try to improve them as much as possible before showing the game one month-ish before release. They have no problems in spoiling the story, as demonstrated from the E3 CGI (jackie hurt/killed and dex's betrayal), the deep dive demo (which has little gameplay and spoils placide's betrayal) and by the fact they let journalists and influencers say as much as they wanted about what happens in the demo.

Seriously doubt it. If CDPR worried about that sort of thing, they would have made numerous changes during development already. They've catered to absolutely no one the entire time. Nothing we've ever seen from the company has attempted to win favor or smooth the waters because people were "upset" with something. Someone is always going to have a complaint. There is always going to be that body of people that dislikes things. That's not scoffing at the people that hold such opinions, it's clarifying how the creative process works. I don't change my vision because a bunch of people shake their heads and put on sour expressions.

I follow my vision and deliver it to the audience that does appreciate it. Everyone else is welcome to engage in something that's more to their liking. Can't please everyone. Foolish to even try. Even more foolsh to "hide" when the inevitable "negativity" reaches me.

(Responding in a general sense here, not directly to your comment: )
Despite all the spectulation, the "evidence" that some people provide (which is often just speculation delivered dramatically, as if it carries more water that other speculation), or the massive "weight" that people think thousands of Reddit or Twitter posts carry...none of that is in any way involved in bringing a creative vision to fruition. Equally, neither is all of the "hype". Both extremes are largely...noise. When the real creative work is going on, people are too busy building things to be bothered by the commotion outside.

Now, that's not to say that feedback is not read and appreciated, and it's not to say that creators don't consider good ideas into account when they pop up. But the vast majority of ideas, good or bad, are never going to be used. They simply don't fit the vision, and/or there's no practical way of implementing them.

If people share their opinions with the expectation of providing feedback on the very limited amount of info we all have, then great! That helps the devs get a handle on whether or not they're evoking the desired response from their audience. (And once again, there will always be negative feedback. No matter what.)

If people share their opinions because they expect to alter the vision through "overwhelming opinion" and have the creators cater to their whims and wishes...I hope they are well-versed in feelings of frustration and disappointment. The world doesn't cater to me. Welcome to Earth. Maybe Mars will be different. But I doubt it.
 
Seriously doubt it. If CDPR worried about that sort of thing, they would have made numerous changes during development already. They've catered to absolutely no one the entire time. Nothing we've ever seen from the company has attempted to win favor or smooth the waters because people were "upset" with something.

Nudity and sexual gender complains?
 
If CDPR worried about that sort of thing, they would have made numerous changes during development already.
or they are simply trying to improve shooting and driving and haven't reached a "satisfying" level yet. Going from a TPP game with not great combat and horse riding to a FPP with great combat and driving is not the easiest thing to do. It's not even a creative choice, it just requires a lot of work and talent. Not even a huge studio like ubisoft achieved it at its first attempt (WD1).
 
Nudity and sexual gender complains?

When did that ever result in "changes"??? That was a large number of people misinterpreting what was said about character creation and the way most dialogue would refer to V by name instead of using pronouns. In response, the devs simply clarified what they meant. There were no changes. (Nor was that a concern of "gender". As very clearly explained, it's a matter of ensuring they can record dialogue once and have it apply to all players. It's a logistic concern, not a social one. And if you take a glancing look at RPGs throughout history...they all do this. It's a rare instance in any game that a character's gender or sex comes into play in any way. Even in text-heavy games...NPCs mostly refer to the player as "you".)

Besides, that makes it sound as if nudity, gender, and sex were never a consideration of Cyberpunk before. Like, back in the 1980s, when it was first created. Hyper-sexuality, joyboys and joygirls, body augmentation, loss of identity due to cyberpsychosis...

The game universe is literally based on counterculture: lack of societal values, unbridled greed, continuous social unrest, extreme violence, drugs, sex, rock-and-roll, or more pointedly -- punk!

These things have been overriding themes of literature for as far back as literature goes. I sometimes think the modern generations believe they created the concepts of identity confusion and sexual liberation...:LOL:...


or they are simply trying to improve shooting and driving and haven't reached a "satisfying" level yet. Going from a TPP game with not great combat and horse riding to a FPP with great combat and driving is not the easiest thing to do. It's not even a creative choice, it just requires a lot of work and talent. Not even a huge studio like ubisoft achieved it at its first attempt (WD1).

Well, sure! That's almost assuredly some of it. Even if development of certain mechanics are going really, really well, it may not be something that would read to a wider audience. That's sort of like letting people see the bride in her dressing robe with curlers in and a mud-mask on. Totally going great, but many people may not get how or why. Could send all the wrong energy. Ruin the moment later.
 
You mean the first 45 minutes of gameplay that was shown about a month before release?
Either that or the 35 minute demo from summer 2014. But that one wasn't more informative than the two demos we've had so far for CP2077, so I think your right.
 
Nor did they ever go into detail about what would happen, the way the story would unfold, how the side quests would work, etc.

For Cyberpunk, just speculating here, but I'm guessing we're in for some major twists and turns. I imagine it may be like The Usual Suspects: there's actually very little about that plot that you can share without completely destroying the ending.
I really don't buy into this excuse, unless there is SO LITTLE to do outside the main quest that they can't show us anything but that. It should be pretty concerning that they won't (or can't) show non essential quests.
 
Now, that's not to say that feedback is not read and appreciated

But that is what is sounds like, even if it doesn't. More/better communication would do wonders.

I'm not demanding anyhting, though. And I think you're right... I have posted here from the start of the forums, but I have never had any expectations or delusions that any of my shit would ever be considered or even read with an open mind. It's a pity, since I'm vain enough to think I actually have good ideas, but what can you do.

But even if I'm not a "game changer", not with all the criticism my posts get (due to, in my selfish belief, people not really getting what I'm trying to push for), I like to discuss these things. To the death of the horse and beyond... in vain hopes and wishes of things that will never become, and once they don't, still doing it.
 
When did that ever result in "changes"???

I was refering to two changes in particular:
-V now wearing underwears during character creation (before it was pixelated nudity, and supposedly the pixel weren't supposed to stay outside of public presentations).
-The possibility to play transgender character which was clearly added after some kind of public claimed they absolutely wanted it.

Both seems to be answers to avoids some PR problems rather than genuine developper's choices.
 
I really don't buy into this excuse...

This is not an "excuse". This is me speculating about why they clearly said they want to avoid spoilers. It's exactly the same as your speculation, such as:

...unless there is SO LITTLE to do outside the main quest that they can't show us anything but that. It should be pretty concerning that they won't (or can't) show non essential quests.

Which is your conclusion based on...not knowing what's included in the game? Because you've been privy to information about the game the rest of the public has not been? Because CDPR's prior titles have been notably lackluster, shallow, and unfulfilling experiences? Because the years upon years of development the game has been through (especially following the lessons learned through the massive success of TW3) are evidence that the developers have obviously lost their way and don't really understand what it takes to make a compelling and engrossing gaming experience?

The reality of the situation is very simple: the studio has opted not to reveal further info about the game for reasons of their own. Most likely, the reasons given: they don't want to reveal any spoilers. There is absolutely no way for anyone who didn't make that decision to know exactly why they've made that decision. Now, I'm not sure how much weight I'm willing to put on any speculation (yours or mine). But it's fun to consider!


But that is what is sounds like, even if it doesn't. More/better communication would do wonders.

Meh. I agree, but they've chosen to simply not talk until there's something to talk about.

I'm not demanding anyhting, though. And I think you're right... I have posted here from the start of the forums, but I have never had any expectations or delusions that any of my shit would ever be considered or even read with an open mind. It's a pity, since I'm vain enough to think I actually have good ideas, but what can you do.

But even if I'm not a "game changer", not with all the criticism my posts get (due to, in my selfish belief, people not really getting what I'm trying to push for), I like to discuss these things. To the death of the horse and beyond... in vain hopes and wishes of things that will never become, and once they don't, still doing it.

That's what it's all about. :) (Hell...I've been trying to argue things in my classrooms for nearly 25 years. No one listens to me, either.)


I was refering to two changes in particular:
-V now wearing underwears during character creation (before it was pixelated nudity, and supposedly the pixel weren't supposed to stay outside of public presentations).
-The possibility to play transgender character which was clearly added after some kind of public claimed they absolutely wanted it.

Both seems to be answers to avoids some PR problems rather than genuine developper's choices.

I'm at a loss trying to understand why anyone would think this was introduced because people asked for it. Look at the NPCs in the game, the clothing, the body augmentations, the source material. Take a look at that famous, in-game soda ad one more time. Check out Sasquatch.

I think a more probable reason they added underwear to character creation was because there was no real reason for the characters to be nude there. You know, The Elder Scrolls Daggerfall featured nude models in the character creation screens. Morrowind onward featured underwear. I...really don't remember caring all that much one way or the other because that's not really the point of going into the character inventory. Sort of moot. Maybe it will be an option.

For transgender, I'd argue that it's an integral part of the game world. As well as identifying as a human...once people borg themselves out of their minds.

I don't think these alterations had one, single thing to do with anyone asking for something. I think they had more to do with creating a certain tone and mood at the start of the game. I'd also imagine they focused in on the character creator by first building their presentation vision for a male V and a female V, then added in other options from there. I'd definitely say correlation is not causation for this one.





 
For transgender, I'd argue that it's an integral part of the game world. As well as identifying as a human...once people borg themselves out of their minds.

I'm mostly staying out of this, but yes, this is very Cyberpunk. Mr Studd and Midnight Lady in 1989 were a "WHOAH" moment - commonplace in 2020, weird to us in 1989.

Big part of the reason we saw that soda ad was for the same reason - to draw attention to what is commonplace in 2077 vs our world.

The media CDPR releases reflects, generally, the impression they want people to take away. They sure aren't perfect, and it's foolish to expect perfection, but overall they have a method.

And let's all remember the thread is Media News and Previews. Not Gameplay or Gender Issues.
 
Well, I'm almost sure I heard them say in an interview that the transgender things was them responding to fan feedback, I'll investigate about it.

Well, searched for half an hour but didn't found exactly the interview where they said they where actually doing some things because of fan feedback.
Best I found was this:
But still not the one I remembered, I'll still be looking for it in when I can.
 
Last edited:
You mean the first 45 minutes of gameplay that was shown about a month before release? That was pretty much after that "final cut''.

That would give Cyberpunk 2077 about five more months until the next online-public showing. But i personally don't think it's going to take that long until we see the game, again.

What month before release? That gameplay video was released on August 2014 while the game was released in May 2015.

Granted much of what was shown and said about gameplay elements was not in the final game but at this point we have to be accustomed to not take anything the developer claims in their purely promotional materials at face value.
On the other hand it’s makes it hard to decide whether or not you want to get that game because some features that sold you on it might not be in the final cut. Whether or not it is not ethical is a rhetorical question.

P.S. Some people here have really mastered the technique of saying a lot without actually saying something meaningful.
Post automatically merged:

They've catered to absolutely no one the entire time. Nothing we've ever seen from the company has attempted to win favor or smooth the waters because people were "upset" with something.

Umm, the original TW3 campaign was criticized for having no colored characters and when Hearts of Stone came out lo and behold the Ofiri guy was exactly what the doctor ordered.

When the real creative work is going on, people are too busy building things to be bothered by the commotion outside.

Now, that's not to say that feedback is not read and appreciated, and it's not to say that creators don't consider good ideas into account when they pop up.

Damn, man. It’s one or the other, you can’t really have it both ways. Choose one. CDPR has clearly chosen to shape the game to be accessible by the largest audience possibly. All we’re asking for is th honestly admitting it via showing the meat and potatoes I.e. how the gameplay mechanics work.
 
Last edited:
What month before release? That gameplay video was released on August 2014 while the game was released in May 2015.

Granted much of what was shown and said about gameplay elements was not in the final game but at this point we have to be accustomed to not take anything the developer claims in their purely promotional materials at face value.
On the other hand it’s makes it hard to decide whether or not you want to get that game because some features that sold you on it might not be in the final cut. Whether or not it is not ethical is a rhetorical question.

P.S. Some people here have really mastered the technique of saying a lot without actually saying something meaningful.

I never saw the E3 2014 gameplay, so I went to YT right now to watch it. Well - what can I say. The 2014 demo and the final game looks damn similar to me. So I don't really understand what do you mean by "much of what was shown and said about gameplay elements was not in the final game" because it's simply not true.
 
What month before release? That gameplay video was released on August 2014 while the game was released in May 2015.

You're confused. The one released in August 2014 is the 35 minute long trailer with Johnny and the Crones. The 45 minute one, the one you were originally talking about was released less than a month before release.

Not that it really matters, but I suppose something similar might happen with Cyberpunk 2077. So, patience, it really is a virtue.
 
Last edited:
You're confused. The one released in August 2014 is the 35 minute long trailer with Johnny and the Crones. The 45 minute one, the one you were originally talking about was released less than a month before release.

Not that it really matters, but I suppose something similar might happen with Cyberpunk 2077.

Haven’t seen the 2015 one. The 2014 was the one pre-D one, the screenshots from which are still on the games pages on Steam and GOG.

The 2014 demo and the final game looks damn similar to me. So I don't really understand what do you mean by "much of what was shown and said about gameplay elements was not in the final game" because it's simply not true.

When we first see the Novigrad market the voice-over tells us that we could get some juicy gear by getting to know specific characters when in reality the gear on the final game is just lackluster as were the combat and overall gameplay loop with basically one-note contracts that didn’t affect the story one bit and we’re just a time filler.
 
When we first see the Novigrad market the voice-over tells us that we could get some juicy gear by getting to know specific characters when in reality the gear on the final game is just lackluster as were the combat and overall gameplay loop with basically one-note contracts that didn’t affect the story one bit and we’re just a time filler.

Yeeeeeesss - that's one feature (getting a gear by getting to know people), not even a gameplay element which is not there. Still not really "much of what was shown and said about gameplay elements was not in the final game", I think.

Contacts not affecting main story - hmmm. I think it's... normal? Small side missions? Completely optional? Still better than fetch quests?
There are plenty of big side missions in Witcher, affecting the story to some degree.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom