Well, when they say in an interview: "All classes (or roles, I don't remember which word was used) will be there." I'm about sure what most people understand is "You'll be able to choose from every classes of the source game" not "Most of the classes will be played by NPC".
And I have an hard time convincing myself that they really though that people would really think that would means that "every classes will be there because of NPC", as it's a moot point, no one really cares about what classes non playable NPC will have.
PS: I think I finally was able to translate my example: A politician promising that no taxes will raise and who then raise duties because they are not "technically" taxes. I don't know if that example works good in english, but in french it's a good one.
I love the work you've done on that point about "politicians" -- I think I get exactly what you're saying now.
And yes, I can see how it may
feel that way if a game happens to deliver an experience other than what I expected or wanted. But the simple fact of the matter is:
No one ever
promised a single thing. Nothing was guaranteed; nothing was set in stone. Ever. In fact, CDPR went to great lengths to constantly say: "Everything is subject to change, folks! What you see here may not reflect the final game! Everything is subject to change!"
So, while the sentiment is understandable, it doesn't support the argument that, "The game
'owes' us XYZ." To clarify, the only time this would be valid is if, for example, the game releases,
then lists features that don't actually appear in the game. If the "box art" (actually being sold in stores) claims that players can drive 20 vehicles, but there are only 3 in the game --
that would be a lie. If it claims that every NPC is persistent, and it actually streams them in randomly --
that would be a lie.
Planning to do something and
sharing that plan is
not a promise or guarantee that it will be there
. Later needing to change or remove parts of that plan is
not lying. This is simply a general misunderstanding of how the creative industry works. It's also why
a lot of companies choose to keep everything under lock and key until a game (or film, or book, etc.) is nearing completion.
Personally, I like regular updates and being able to watch development take shape. But, I'm also a total hypocrite for saying this, as I do sometimes run people out of my theatre if they stumble into rehearsals.
This is why, while I'm certainly disappointed by what we've seen I'm not upset by it.
Then again I don't send death threats to people as has become commonplace on the net
It's good to know I can drive without fear of snipers!
(At least...not your snipers.
)
And that's life at large, I'm sure you'll agree. Always a disappointment when something I'm truly looking forward to suddenly seems to take a turn in a wild direction. I remember the countless "X-COM" remakes over the years. I'd often be so excited about one project or another, only to have it cancelled and abandoned...or to finally play it and be like, ::faceplant:: Then, the
XCOM: Enemy Unknown reboot came out, and I was like:
...
...:unsure:...
It definitely wasn't "the old X-COM", but it was righteous fun in its own right. (Besides, now we have
Xenonauts, too, so I'm a happy camper.)
This is part of why I hate the words "immersion" and "immersive." They're meaningless buzzwords because of the sheer range of possible interpretations. Is it immersive because I can see a character pushing a button, immersive because I can chop wood or forge a sword, or is it immersive because I can see the tank shell right before it turns my head into a fine mist? And, sadly, in game design these tend to be vastly different approaches.
Nailed it on the nose -- "buzzword." That's exactly why it keeps popping up. It's tricky to manage language like that, too. Difficult to decide when a word has lost its effect and impact and become so vestigial that it's actually frustrating and misdirecting an audience rather than engaging them. Honestly, it's a word that does far more harm than good for publications in my estimation.
I'd rather have had the devs say: "We've opted for first-person because we want to put the player right on the sun-baked pavement of Night City. We want them to experience the scale and action from a purely personal perspective, to watch the bullets come right at them. We want the player face-to-face with the world, never knowing what's around the next corner or lurking behind them. It lets us highlight the finer details in the environment. Playing in first-person allows us capture the intimacy and energy that we're going for."
That's just it: You're not talking about most people in general. You're talking about certain specific groups of people, who happen to make up a minority of the human species. You just don't get outside of those groups enough to realize they are a minority.
I argue that it's all moot. It's not possible to actually determine a "majority". I can arrange a survey or poll to give me any result I want. The only thing that matters in the end is whether the game appeals to
me.
If I don't like it...10,000 people insisting it's the best thing ever won't change my mind. If I do like it, 10,000 people insisting it's rubbish won't matter, either.
