Mentioned but missing features list

+
Status
Not open for further replies.
i agree first person is better for immersion, but there are a lot of times where third plays a lot better. Like when running through a building in stealth or combat in the urban settings
I don't mind stealthing in first person. Far Cry got me used to that. But I would of at least liked 3rd person conversations and cutscenes to be a gameplay toggle setting so people can have what they prefer.
 
When I don't like a game, I just get a refund and leave without a fuss or drama, and be cautious on the company next time, but hey some people need to vent their anger and frustration somewhere, 10 years seeing so many angry rants of video games fans from every video games forums, hard to swallow this but if you hoping your complaint will affect peeps who enjoyed the game you'll be disappointed, your opinions are your opinions, see the example how D3 shaped to be, the unsatisfied fans in the end just move on to other titles, peeps who enjoyed D3 still play to this day.
 
When I don't like a game, I just get a refund and leave without a fuss or drama, and be cautious on the company next time, but hey some people need to vent their anger and frustration somewhere, 10 years seeing so many angry rants of video games fans from every video games forums, hard to swallow this but if you hoping your complaint will affect peeps who enjoyed the game you'll be disappointed, your opinions are your opinions, see the example how D3 shaped to be, the unsatisfied fans in the end just move on to other titles, peeps who enjoyed D3 still play to this day.
The idea isn't to vent anger and frustration the idea is to show the reality of the situation to those who didn't or did not enjoy the game. I don't shame anybody for liking or not liking this game or any game. Hell I still even enjoy the product the gave us with all the bugs and issues it has. And you can't deny the console performance details being hidden from the public is pretty scummy. But it's still not the game the devs were envisioning and if the community and the devs want the game the devs envisioned then that shows the corpos of the company hey people want what we were advertising. Let's fix the game to be that and make the community and playerbase happy or happier with their purchase because the devs are delivering what they wanted for a video game. In 2018 we were shown that. And hopefully this year the game will become that. And then move on from there.
 
wall of text subjective rant.

:facepalm::giveup:


Look you can believe what you want . I disagree with everything you claim to be a fact to you.

There are people who believe the moon landing was "faked " as a fact

I don't agree with them either.

The Wildest Moon Landing Conspiracy Theories, Debunked - HISTORY


Look at this video.

30 SHOCKING TRICKS ADVERTISERS USE TO MAKE FOOD LOOK DELICIOUS - YouTube

All you are proving is you believe everything you hear or see in a commercial or marketing campaign as "fact" buy it based on that , then blame the company when your not satisfied or it doesn't live up to the hype.

" omg this burger doesn't look exactly like it does on tv commercial" False advertising!!!

As for the game the raging community has proven that the devs should never communicate with the community like this with any game again as I mentioned earlier post.

I may not think is is a top level game, and there are things I really don't like about it which is why I gave it a 6.5 /10 rating but missing features and " false advertising " are not among them.

I don't hold any grudge against the devs for either of those . Nor do I think they have done anything unlawful or "owe " anyone anything" ( with exception of refunds for console players )

yea unless the mods just make a rant mega thread its going to be repetitive . The fact in my view people are overreacting this much is just getting to the point of extreme absurdity.


 
Last edited:
:facepalm::giveup:


Look you can believe what you want . I disagree with everything you claim to be a fact to you.

There are people who believe the moon landing was "faked " as a fact

I don't agree with them either.

The Wildest Moon Landing Conspiracy Theories, Debunked - HISTORY


Look at this video.

30 SHOCKING TRICKS ADVERTISERS USE TO MAKE FOOD LOOK DELICIOUS - YouTube

All you are proving is you believe everything you hear or see in a commercial or marketing campaign as "fact" buy it based on that , then blame the company when your not satisfied or it doesn't live up to the hype.

" omg this burger doesn't look exactly like it does on tv commercial" False advertising!!!

As for the game the raging community has proven that the devs should never communicate with the community like this with any game again as I mentioned earlier post.

I may not think is is a top level game, and there are things I really don't like about it which is why I gave it a 6.5 /10 rating but missing features and " false advertising " are not among them.

I don't hold any grudge against the devs for either of those . Nor do I think they have done anything unlawful or "owe " anyone anything" ( with exception of refunds for console players )





You're so far off base and just spewing non-sequiturs at this point there is little hope for a productive conversation. All I can do is once again reiterate that you are dead wrong on this. This isn't an issue with believing everything one hears, it's the actual law regarding false advertising as it actually exists, regardless whether you want to pretend these cold, hard facts are subjective opinion. (Spoiler: they are not and this is not what subjective means). Further, as noted, even misleading statements can qualify as false advertising.

As to your assertion about the burger not looking like on TV and similar advertising, your ignorance is all the more apparent because something like this falls into an explicit legal category called "puffery." Look it up. Or stay ignorant, your choice. But regardless, puffery is entirely distinct from making claims, assertions, and implications that a reasonable person (in law this is the "reasonable person standard") would take to be material assertions regarding the product that are not true.
 
You're so far off base and just spewing non-sequiturs at this point there is little hope for a productive conversation. All I can do is once again reiterate that you are dead wrong on this. This isn't an issue with believing everything one hears, it's the actual law regarding false advertising as it actually exists, regardless whether you want to pretend these cold, hard facts are subjective opinion. (Spoiler: they are not and this is not what subjective means). Further, as noted, even misleading statements can qualify as false advertising.

As to your assertion about the burger not looking like on TV and similar advertising, your ignorance is all the more apparent because something like this falls into an explicit legal category called "puffery." Look it up. Or stay ignorant, your choice. But regardless, puffery is entirely distinct from making claims, assertions, and implications that a reasonable person (in law this is the "reasonable person standard") would take to be material assertions regarding the product that are not true.


Well we are mutually agreed opinion that the other person is completely wrong.

Have a nice day . :beer:
 
Well we are mutually agreed opinion that the other person is completely wrong.

Have a nice day . :beer:

You too. As some reading material for your trip, please see the following fact sheet published by the Federal Trade Commission involving truth in advertising laws. Source

Although this is how the federal agency protects consumers, these standards are similar for what an individual his or herself must show when filing a private suit under either state or federal law. As you'll notice some key takeaways:

"If an ad says or shows something that’s false or that misleads you about a product, it’s deceptive. That’s crucial if the false or misleading information is an important part of your decision to buy the product."

"An advertiser is responsible for all the claims in an ad—not only for what the ad actually says, but also for what it shows or implies. The words, the pictures, and even the product’s name add up to the 'net impression'"

"A key part of the FTC’s analysis is what’s known as the 'reasonable consumer.' The FTC looks at what an ad says or shows from the viewpoint of the audience the advertiser is trying to reach."

"The FTC doesn’t have to prove that a business or ad agency means to fool people—only that people are likely to have been fooled by the ad."

As is made clear by the fact sheet, deceptive advertising is unlawful when the statements or suggestions are material and it is these are the standards used to determine the unlawfulness. Notice there's nothing about the consumer having to do any due diligence, as your previous misinformation stated. But you go ahead and keep thinking I'm wrong and that somehow our opinions on this are of equal caliber. Lol. :facepalm:
 
It's like they didn't put disclaimers on their videos that state "THIS DOES NOT REPRESENT WHAT THE GAME IS GOING TO LOOK LIKE" or anything. Also, it's not like any of the earlier videos that had come out were just "CONCEPT" videos. That would be absurd
 
It's like they didn't put disclaimers on their videos that state "THIS DOES NOT REPRESENT WHAT THE GAME IS GOING TO LOOK LIKE" or anything. Also, it's not like any of the earlier videos that had come out were just "CONCEPT" videos. That would be absurd

I think the one that stands out the most to me regarding the videos is the diner video released less than a couple months before release. Here. I think anyone watching this would reasonably expect there to be epic police chases, shooting while driving a car, purchasable/acquirable properties, a rags-to-riches style story, etc. Of course debatable, I know I've seen a lot of commentary about this one.

There's also the issue regarding the gameplay video where while it has the disclaimer "does not represent the final look of the game," you nonetheless have multiple instances of the narrator saying explicitly factual things about the game that are not true in the release including discussion of enhanced RPG aspects, NPC behavior, random encounters, character abilities, meaningful choice and consequence, etc. etc. There are many video's that highlight the mountains of content that was cut that the narrator explicitly stated was in the game. All of this coupled with other public statements regarding what features the game would have, when taken as a whole, leads to a plausible claim that consumers were mislead.
 
It's like they didn't put disclaimers on their videos that state "THIS DOES NOT REPRESENT WHAT THE GAME IS GOING TO LOOK LIKE" or anything. Also, it's not like any of the earlier videos that had come out were just "CONCEPT" videos. That would be absurd

All of these videos are still accessible to the consumer and could be a part of a purchasing decision. As we know full well that they not only do not reflect the 'look' of the game but do not reflect the gameplay mechanics either it seems a little absurd to leave that material online.
 
I think the one that stands out the most to me regarding the videos is the diner video released less than a couple months before release. Here. I think anyone watching this would reasonably expect there to be epic police chases, shooting while driving a car, purchasable/acquirable properties, a rags-to-riches style story, etc. Of course debatable, I know I've seen a lot of commentary about this one.

There's also the issue regarding the gameplay video where while it has the disclaimer "does not represent the final look of the game," you nonetheless have multiple instances of the narrator saying explicitly factual things about the game that are not true in the release including discussion of enhanced RPG aspects, NPC behavior, random encounters, character abilities, meaningful choice and consequence, etc. etc. There are many video's that highlight the mountains of content that was cut that the narrator explicitly stated was in the game. All of this coupled with other public statements regarding what features the game would have, when taken as a whole, leads to a plausible claim that consumers were mislead.
don't forget to listen to the night city wire episodes on their youtube.
 
Man, I love the game, but the more I come to the end of the story the more I see the missing part... How I wish we experience a real 2077 timeline with this game. And its all because of the cut contents they thrown...

At that moment, I booted Detroit after a long months of not playing... man Detroit is far more cyberpunkish than cyberpunk... more 2077ish also... How technology is so heavy effective on that timeline of the game, how the decision could heavily affect the story. I mean, how I wish Cyberpunk 2077 could achieve that Detroit system. How I wish.... ..... AI system is way better though on Detroit. The 2nd part is... I booted Watchdogs (1st title), man, The hacking system of it I realized is more like 2077ish than Cyberpunk... More punkish too... Also, I find the AI of watchdogs is more good in behavior than Ai of cyberpunk.

Just my realization... How I wish they just copy all those and put it in Cyberpunk. Watchdogs + Detroit = Cyberpunk 20(88). Junk copyright, if the Final outcome could surpass the origins of it.

Anyway CP2077 still has the potential to reclaim everything that is lost... If they just bring back what is been cut.
 
It's like they didn't put disclaimers on their videos that state "THIS DOES NOT REPRESENT WHAT THE GAME IS GOING TO LOOK LIKE" or anything. Also, it's not like any of the earlier videos that had come out were just "CONCEPT" videos. That would be absurd

And then they stated "this is just a glimpse of what to expect". They promised more but delivered less.
 
A lot of people compare what we got to the 2018 demo. And a lot of people seem to think that the "subject to change" is a valid defence in favour of CDPR, when it comes to accusations of false / misleading marketing.

A reasonable gamer might expect the final product to be changed over the course of development. But by "change" gamers tend to imagine the presented mechanics are fleshed out, expanded upon, less buggy, more flashy... not removed completely with a hacksaw. We've had games downgrade visuals to match expected performance levels and such... and it's always met with criticism (the bigger the change, the bigger the criticism). Essentially - it's a matter of scope and perceived change "direction".

Change features for the better and no one will be angry; in fact people will be happy that you delivered more than you advertised (under promise, overdeliver). For example the overall quality of visuals seems to have been improved since the 2018, and that's a plus for CDPR.
Change features for... something different (but of similar quality), and while some people might be a bit angry, the general consensus will likely be that it's OK, provided you come clean about such changes prior to release.
Change for the worse and people get angry - the more you change for the worse, the more angry people will get. Unfortunately for CDPR and the 2018 demo, this is the most common case, with features removed left, right and centre. Inspections, trams, spider bot, character creation choices... all hacked away from the title. Takedowns, significantly simplified. Crowd density - lowered. Plenty of things the narrator taunts or promises - missing. Any one of these things changed for the worse or missing would still get some people complaining, but in the grand scheme of things wouldn't probably matter. But when the scope was reduced so much, then it starts to be a problem.

And here's the best part... For a moment, forget about the 2018 demo. Forget about the 2019 demo. All you need to do is focus on all the pre-release 2020 marketing materials (trailers and Night City Wire episodes especially) and it's easy to find things that are misleading JUST THERE. No matter how you look at it, CDPR's marketing for CP77, compared to the final product, seems grossly misleading.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom