Wait!
What?
They're suppose to talk to each other?
Is that why marketing keeps promising features that aren't actually in the game?
- Status
What?
They're suppose to talk to each other?
Is that why marketing keeps promising features that aren't actually in the game?
I think it depends on how much marketing is external vs. marketing that is internal. External probably gets better communication because they have to actively approach you. From what I've heard, internal tends not to.
And here we are talking about two different things.I was identifying that "majority" is never "validation" for anything. Regardless of the topic, arriving at a majority consensus serves no purpose but to identify the most common opinion / belief for that limited body of individuals at that particular time. Basing any sort of decision on that is guaranteed to cause complication at best and result in catastrophe at worst.
So, whenever people try to argue their point by saying, "I have statistics that show XYZ," it doesn't prove anything. Even global statistics can be completely misleading, and most of the time, whenever this sort of argument is presented, the statistics usually mean "myself and the last few people I spoke to".
I'm simply challenging the squabbles that often develop when person A and person B try to settle a disagreement by proving one side has "more people" that agree with it. There is no topic in known creation that can be understood and resolved by a majority vote. That's simply a tool to be used when the answer is not known (or when there is no final answer possible). Arriving at a majority doesn't do a single thing to understand the issue itself. Majorities are, very often, completely inaccurate.
Which is kinda humorous, given that both capitalism and democracy focus, in their most ideal form, under the "majority vote" system. Probably why people have the mistaken idea that the majority vote is actually important when it comes to other areas.
Or which are not actually possible for computers to currently attempt.
That or the mid-range PC (or consoles) many games try to make their games for.
Making a game that only a top-of-the-line PC can run isn't going to result in a lot of sales.
Can't speak about CDPR's setup directly; no idea. Based on most of their ads and how internal things work with us, I think most of their communication is pretty darn good. That doesn't stop "immersion" from being a really annoying word, though.
Mm-hm. Exactly. It's all about trying to mitigate issues rather than choosing a productive course and sticking with it. I find it quite flawed as a foundational methodology for understanding and making decisions.
Strangely enough, a classroom, which is purely academic and goal-oriented by nature, is wholly focused on a dictatorial system. Voting has it's place, but even then, it's not truly a democracy. The goal is still determined by an academic authority, and that ensures (when handled correctly) that understanding is gained. And, most of the time, those goals result in widespread dissent and upset (...raise your hand if you enjoy lectures, due dates, and homework [<-- See what I did here?
]). By nature, people don't want to understand, they simply want to feel accepted. That gets in the way of growth and progress.So the argument of, "Most people agree with my argument," means absolutely nothing. In hindsight, it's fair to say that the majority can be proven correct, but the majority can just as readily be proven wrong in hindshight. Regardless, the majority opinion does not directly contribute to the results in any way. It serves only to sensationalize one argument over another.
FPP working or not working for the game will be determined by how well it works for the gameplay design and execution. It will have nothing to do with how many people voice their opinion on it one way or the other.
(Also, please don't take this to mean that I'm saying people's opinions don't matter, or that issues should not be discussed! Nothing is further from the truth! It's just that a.] encountering an apparent majority and b.] fully understanding an issue, are two wholly different considerations.)
Last edited:
I dont see why we have too choose First person or Third Person. just look at GTA they give you both ... and that's the correct answer.
Last edited:
what can I say but I do actually type. and some times there are typing errors.
Yeah.
Even if you are 100% in favor of FPP only and you believe every single decision CDPR has made in their life is the best decision on the planet, there's no denying they did absolutely say some things early on that have changed.
To pretend people who took those statements as gospel are making things up would be disingenuous at best. Those of us that have been following this game since it was first teased are well aware of what was said and not said.
The fact is, the game that was teased (emphasis on teased) is not the game we have now. You can like that or not like that, but them's the facts. Ignoring them doesn't help anybody, and indeed only pisses people off.
So... in short... I think they have good reason to be frustrated, but at this point, it's clear we're in a "well, get over it because it isn't going to change" situation; where TPP/FPP is involved, that is. Other elements (how much RPG, etc.) are certainly much more open for tweaks.
EDIT: Of course, this thread is for the express purpose of discussing this topic, so I'm not saying we shouldn't. But rather, we should acknowledge that yes, the game was once intended to be one thing, and it's now another.
Uhhhh...what. This is not a fact. This is barely an idea. We don't have a game. We didn't have one then. What we sort of have now is a demo and a trailer and those both follow elements in the what we were shown earlier.
Absolutely totally disagree. The game is VERY MUCH what they've been talking about since day one. A list of things that hangs on the wall in the Cyberpunk development area, by the way.
We have dark, we have rainy, we have Max-Tac, we have girls with blades in their arms...You actually get to play a girl with blades in her arms...
And, this line of ... argument? Idea? concept? Wild fancy? Comes wandering along the path of Downgrade ( THEY PROMISED US SOMETHING AND THEN THEY LIED) which is a fast way to Problems.
Firstly, what in the original teaser trailer led anyone to believe that the game was first-person, third-person, real-time, turn-based, etc.? It was a cinematic presentation of a conceptualization of the Cyberpunk universe. Nothing more.
People will very often get an idea in their minds about something and become attached to their own idea. Others are not required to coincide with their ideas. Everyone has their own ideas. Assuming I'm right about something I don't actually know is not wise. I can speculate and analyze based upon limited evidence, but I need to prepare to be wrong.
Secondly, CDPR promised nothing. They've still promised nothing. They have shared some details about their work-in-progress. Sharing my ideas is not promising they're finalized. It's letting people peek at my plan, not guaranteeing that everything will work out that way in the end.
Quote from the first 40 seconds of the demo's narration: "...everything you see is potentially subject to change."
These are not promises.
That's how everything works last time I checked. If anyone is "frustrated", it's only because they didn't get exactly what they wanted. I'm just going to let that hang there on its own.
The only thing that such uproar achieves is encouraging studios to keep totally silent about what they're working on in the future.
When the game has been released, and the official description is on the box, posted in GOG, Steam, etc. -- then and only then has anything been "promised".
Tactical mode is missing, though. Either trashed or not yet spoken about.
Going WAY back:
2012 Announcement Conference, 5:33 into video -
As long as it lines up with that, I'll say it's promise lived up to. Now of course some phrases such as "based on," "mature," "realistic," "gripping," "gigantic," and "exceptional" are up for interpretation ... but this is what "the promise" was.
The other slide mentioned was one slide from some random dev presentation in 2013 of Red Engine 3 (which Cyberpunk 2077 isn't even on so far as I know) that included this info:
I will also mention that "mixed TPP/FPP" is ambiguous, especially given that this wasn't said at some promotional event, but a technical conference. Strictly speaking, a game with FPP supplemented by TPP in some cutscenes, while driving and in a photomode IS "mixed TPP/FPP."
As long as it lines up with that, I'll say it's promise lived up to. Now of course some phrases such as "based on," "mature," "realistic," "gripping," "gigantic," and "exceptional" are up for interpretation ... but this is what "the promise" was.
The other slide mentioned was one slide from some random dev presentation in 2013 of Red Engine 3 (which Cyberpunk 2077 isn't even on so far as I know) that included this info:
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt
(PC, Xbox One, PS4, ~2014)
• mature story driven TPP RPG set in a fantasy universe
• jaw-dropping story spanning over 100 hours of gameplay (50h main story arc) that will pull in newcomers and longtime fans alike
• vast, borderless open world with various ways of exploration (sailing, horseback)
Cyberpunk 2077
(PC, next-gen platforms)
• futuristic story driven RPG + open world
• dense city environment + surrounding wastelands
• tons of customization, mixed TPP/FPP
Slides can be found still through link here - https://www.dsogaming.com/news/cd-p...support-both-first-third-person-perspectives/
(PC, Xbox One, PS4, ~2014)
• mature story driven TPP RPG set in a fantasy universe
• jaw-dropping story spanning over 100 hours of gameplay (50h main story arc) that will pull in newcomers and longtime fans alike
• vast, borderless open world with various ways of exploration (sailing, horseback)
Cyberpunk 2077
(PC, next-gen platforms)
• futuristic story driven RPG + open world
• dense city environment + surrounding wastelands
• tons of customization, mixed TPP/FPP
Slides can be found still through link here - https://www.dsogaming.com/news/cd-p...support-both-first-third-person-perspectives/
I will also mention that "mixed TPP/FPP" is ambiguous, especially given that this wasn't said at some promotional event, but a technical conference. Strictly speaking, a game with FPP supplemented by TPP in some cutscenes, while driving and in a photomode IS "mixed TPP/FPP."
3. is lacking in large part (based on what we've been shown and told; not elaborating here, numerous discussions about this have been had).
4. is lacking in large part (as above).
6. is highly questionable and ambiguous statement, but... marketing speech always is like that.
1, 2 and 5 seem like they've been actually mostly held on to; from the sound of things.
So... 50%.
I don't think we've heard enough to make a call on 3 or 6.
4 I think is technically accurate so far as "varied" is met when there are various options for one to pick from, though I'm a bit sad it's 3 instead of 9.
EDIT: Having said that, some of the "roles" are really more about where they player came from, or who they are stylistically. Other than the one special skill, and different default starting skills, the roles aren't really so different mechanically speaking in CP2020.
Last edited:
- Status