Maybe with Orion… but than again they have to face GTA Vl in 2025…
I don't think the game coming out until 2027. And considering they're using a new engine... I don't know what's gonna come out in the end.
Actually I think I would like to get phantom liberty to finally get through the full game and after that I probably wouldn't play the next cd red games.
This year I'm more interested in the announcement of a new game by the author of no man's sky. This developer really deserves awards for supporting the game.
That's not a thing in most of "RPGs" or at least, games in which your character become more and more powerful along your playthrough...?
i.e finding new and better stuff (or upgrading your current stuff) because enemies become stronger along your own character progression.
Not sure I follow you... Would it have been better at the end of the game, when your character is almost a god-like fighter, to destroy the exact same enemies you faced at the beginning of the game?
And I say "destroy", because that's what it would happen, it wouldn't be "fights"...
Last edited:
CDPR and Rockstar make wildly different games, with completely different team sizes and entirely different budgets.
I can almost guarantee Orion will have better writing, story and by the time it comes out (2-4 years after GTA6) it will have superior graphics. At least graphically when it comes to just facial animations and stuff - I could still see GTA6 being superior in some little ways, like when someone sits on a seat the cushion will actually react and stuff.
While I can almost guarantee GTA6 will have a bigger map, more content and more 'immersive sim' elements to their game. For example when you go shopping in the game you will likely be able to actually touch things or when you loot corpses you'll probably move the body around or dig in their pockets - like in RDR2.
This is all to say that 'next gen' doesn't mean you will outdo other games in every single way. Some studios are going to do certain things better and certain things worse. This is because every game studio focuses on different things and is attempting to deliver a different product. People who are playing CDPR games can either accept that they are open world games heavy on the narrative/characters and light on the RPG aspects or they can't - because it isn't going to change... their team size, budget and timelines they have are not going to permit it.
We'll see if CDPR reigns in the advertising a bit more for Cyberpunk 2, because I agree that was their biggest problem the first time around.
I can almost guarantee Orion will have better writing, story and by the time it comes out (2-4 years after GTA6) it will have superior graphics. At least graphically when it comes to just facial animations and stuff - I could still see GTA6 being superior in some little ways, like when someone sits on a seat the cushion will actually react and stuff.
While I can almost guarantee GTA6 will have a bigger map, more content and more 'immersive sim' elements to their game. For example when you go shopping in the game you will likely be able to actually touch things or when you loot corpses you'll probably move the body around or dig in their pockets - like in RDR2.
This is all to say that 'next gen' doesn't mean you will outdo other games in every single way. Some studios are going to do certain things better and certain things worse. This is because every game studio focuses on different things and is attempting to deliver a different product. People who are playing CDPR games can either accept that they are open world games heavy on the narrative/characters and light on the RPG aspects or they can't - because it isn't going to change... their team size, budget and timelines they have are not going to permit it.
We'll see if CDPR reigns in the advertising a bit more for Cyberpunk 2, because I agree that was their biggest problem the first time around.
Keep in mind that CP2077 went through a development hell.
If I recall correctly, they switched engines mid-development. Which caused their delays and massive crunches (There were reports of devs working overtime like crazy).
So it's worth taking the end product with a pinch of salt, it wasn't made under ideal conditions. (Of course, I do not, nor will not excuse whatever managment made the decision to cause that crunch and ultimately release version 1.0 instead of delaying the game until it was done. And by done I mean "Done using normal developer schedules" not "Done by making devs work 25 hours a day")
Also as far as game announcements/advertisements... The vast majority of products oversell what they are. It's not a particularly shocking revelation when a video game gets hyped up to be far more than it is (Just look at recent games that did the same thing like Starfield, Redfall, The Day Before)
Ahh, the eternal struggle of "RPG's" and their arbitrarily shoehorning in a "Level" system because "RPG" has to be synonymous with "Number go up!"
There are various ways in which level progression is handled in games that feature it;
- There's the static scaling, where as you progress through a linear scaled world you encounter higher level enemies. Thus you need to look for more levels yourself and better gear to handle the threats that come at you.
- There's the dynamic scaling, where you can go anywhere at any time. But whenever you level up, enemies get stronger the same time you do... But you're always chasing down gear trying to keep up.
- There's the mix. Where areas themselves are linearly scaled throughout the world. But within them they have a small variance of dynamic scaling so as you get a handful of levels within an area, enemies stay relatively similar to you in power. But you have notable step ups in enemy power when you move to the next area.
Dynamic scaling tends to offer the worse immersion, but overall provides more freedom as you can do any content in any order you wish and will have "Engaging" combat (I use quotations, because it depends on how enemy power scaling is handled. In a game like Skyrim, most of it was excessively boosting enemy health to the point where a random pleb enemy could take 5-10 minutes of constantly whacking away with top end weapons (Which leads to simply relying on Blacksmith cheese and stealth attack multipliers). On the flipside, a game like CP2077 simply has enemies not scale as quickly so you can massively outscale enemies to the point where there isn't even a point in having scaling on them)
Static scaling generally creates better immersion. As you go into more dangerous places, enemies get appropriately more dangerous. But this can have the kickback of if you don't do things at level (Be it because you decided to challenge yourself with some more difficult content first, or because the game hands out too much exp) then they become so trivially easy that they're simply not fun.
Never forget that the same man decided to release the steaming pile of garbage that was NMS on release though.
Sure, credit where credit is due to actually bothering to fix up the catastrophe that was the game on launch. But it's good to hold people accountable for releasing things before they're done. We don't need this behaviour of selling people a glorified alpha build as a full priced "Finished product".
Like, we actually have "Early Access" for a reason. If there's a need to obtain money during development.
Might be true. But if we take your points in consideration it’s not „the next generation of open world gaming“ - what does highend graphic or strong storytelling/characters have to do with next lvl open world gaming? - the quote was about a statement they made and didn’t deliver.
I bet GTA Vls world will breath and feel immersive way more than CPs. That’s all my call about GTA Vl was about.
I think it was much better than cyberpunk 1.0 (I actually think 2.0 is what should have been on release), but in any case it's enough to compare the number of major changes in both games since release.
Post automatically merged:
You can certainly argue here, both of these games had such a failed release that you can get your money back at any time
I'm only judging by the changes I've seen since release. And three patches in the last year from cd red, one of which is completely based on rtx, that's weird....
(Perhaps a little more than three, but in any case there have been few major improvements)
Post automatically merged:
Maybe I'm pouring too much water (is there such an expression in the English language?).
To summarize: I just wanted to say that I have more confidence in hello games.
Last edited:
The problem is that you see a checklist instead of a virtual environment in the first place, and you wonder if those late game checklist tasks will be of any interest to the player without level scaling.
A goon shouldn't even try to fight you a cyberware god, but run for their life instead. It's all about shifting points of interest as you level up and enemy placement.
This is why I never compared them, nor gave you a direct example when you asked for one. No point to it, getting into that discussion - my initial criticism was simple enough. Not only RPGs are benefited by a cohesive world. Every game does, and especially narrative-heavy games.
There is also what CDPR did in TW3, a bit surprised they didn't apply the same for Cyberpunk. It's also a mix, meaning areas are leveled, but enemies "follow" your level, to avoid "boring" low level areas exploration... And a little bonus it's optional.
I said "RPGs" because it's the point of RPGs generally, but I include every games which offer a significant progression of your character, even games which can't really be classified as "RPG". There are games in which it's more believable like TW3, new areas, bigger and more dangerous monsters/enemies, while in Cyberpunk, it's "only" humans, so...
If it was the case, without level scalling as it is now (like before 2.0), every enemies you would encounter will simply flee... I mean the higher level enemies you were able to encounter were level 30, while V was able to reach the level 50... Before 2.0, after reaching the level 30/35, every fights were easy as pie.
Last edited:
My issue with scaling is… if I start a random rpg/adventure I want areas which are deadly for me at the start… running as a novice to a place with a big fat bad ass dragon f.e. it’s just natural for me to get slayed instantly - I will return lvled and better equipped and give it another try until I’m able to stand a chance…
beeing able to survive everywhere in an openworld from the get go because of scaling is the opposite of immersion in my point of view…
beeing able to survive everywhere in an openworld from the get go because of scaling is the opposite of immersion in my point of view…
I'm afraid this game needs auto-leveling, because otherwise it's just not clear in which building you are waiting for enemies of your level and in which building enemies with skulls.
But of course I'm upset that with scaling I lose the opportunity to find something cool when exploring the world
well the game didn’t had scaling from the get go tho - you knew by trying that taking on Valentinos was more dangerous than on tigerclaws f.e. - it was simple each district was for a specific lvl-range in mind (more or less) but you were not forced to take that order. Looking for a challenge? Just head towards a higher lvl territory - but now? Everywhere the same sh*t no surprises anywhere anymore other than „wait wtf why can’t I open doors anymore? eh…“
Yeah, I played the game on release. Maybe it's just me, but I remember that enemies could vary greatly in level within the same district. That said, the enemies in the main storyline were always much weaker than me.
After 2.0 the fights got kind of harder, I found the hotel heists more interesting. But of course by max level 50 the balance breaks down again and enemies die too quickly.....
... I mean next gen is often referring to the next generation of hardware. And a lot of that is around processing power to both make games look better and be able to permit them to accomplish more. So the game looking better has a lot to do with their statement and the next generation. As an example - it is why a ton of people reacted negatively to Avowed's reveal. A game looking good also has a lot to do with immersion.
I also think continued development in how stories are told, how they are delivered to the player and how well they are written is a next generation thing as well - because games have a lot of room for improvement in general in that regard. Compared to other forms of entertainment like books and movies the storytelling in games has lagged behind in a lot of respects.
And I think GTA6 being more 'immersive' than Cyberpunk depends on what immerses you. RDR2 was the last game Rockstar made and I agree it did a lot of things better than Cyberpunk. However, while touching everything you buy at a store is 'immersive', digging in everyone's pockets when you loot them is 'immersive', brushing your horse is 'immersive', feeding your horse is 'immersive', having to go back to your horse to switch weapons is 'immersive', quests forcing you on absurdly long horse rides is 'immersive' and so on... but I didn't find the game to be very immersive at all - I just thought those things made the game drag, made it boring and ultimately made me put it down after like 10-15 hours. Because it seemed to me about half the time I spent playing the game was spent doing things that would be a chore in real life... so why would I want to do them in a video game?
I'm actually glad things like that aren't in Cyberpunk, despite some people really loving them (and understandably so). Just like I thought applying oils non-stop in The Witcher 3 was a waste of time, despite it being 'true to the lore' and 'immersive'.
what you said are nonsensical as many architects that actually analyzed Night City has been praised as one of the most realistic rendition of dystopian city in video games. Night city taken many inspiration from IRL cities, both in US & many other countries. For example, Kowloon walled city was an inspiration to some of the districts & buildings in Night city, including recent dog town.
You want a "immersion" of highest level but also want "cyberpunk power fantasy" experience. You would reject any semblance or resistance from the game, nor any type of rejection & scenarios that would not make player character as the center of universe. your arguments are contradictory in itself. The game is anti-MC as things could never be what V planned or want it to be. Even the most positive/ good endings & outcomes are not to satisfy player/V whims, when things have massive repercussions & consequences.
"its economy is a gimmick" .... What does that even mean? Both the lore & in-game currency system are in sync for this game.
If you can't be bothered to actually read what I wrote, I don't expect you to understand the economy comment, or hold a conversation.
No they definitely aren't. Night City is supposed to be a hellscape where only the ultra rich live in luxury and the vast majority live is squalor, where violence is its own industry partially because of this, yet your character can become a literal millionaire before the start of the second act. The actual game economy that you as a player experience is so far removed from the economy the game is supposedly protraying it isn't even funny.
By the time you're half way through the game, you could feasibly own 30 odd luxury cars, 6 houses, be chromed out the ass and still have a million in the bank. It makes no sense. Your character is supposed to be insignificant in the grand scheme, yet just jumping around shooting a few gang members can make you as rich as Saburo Arasaka. You can a couple of guns for tens of thousands in a city where guns are supposed to be cheaper than a meal. The in game economy is fucked.
I also take massive umbrage with this statement. So many people, including CDPR themselves push this narrative that in Night City you're just a guy and ultimately you don't affect the world in a major way, but it is complete horseshit. Your character in almost every ending literally storms the most powerful corporation in the city (potentially alone) manages to take on and wipe out the most powerful borged out monster in 100 years, a guy who treats even the most powerful and talented Edgerunners as chew toys and then manages to destroy a top secret AI prison and cause the collapse of said corporation. This would have a monumental impact on Night City and the world, particularly given that Night City's independence is tied to Arasaka being a wall against Militech and the NUSA.
Sure, the game doesn't give the character or the player what they 'want', but it still portrays the main character as some sort of demigod, much like a game like Skyrim does. This is not necessarily a problem in and of itself, a game that is universally loved nowadays as an RPG and narrative masterpiece, Fallout New Vegas, allows you to be a godlike character who fundamentally changes the world based on your actions alone, but it is at least consistent in this. Cyberpunk acts like you're a nobody but allows you to do absurd things and become cartoonlshly powerful and still expects you to act like you're just some chump, when in reality the V that storms Arasaka could probably take down half the NUSA if what the game allows you to do is followed.
Last edited: