My take on why this game failed so hard, despite how good Witcher 3 was

+
I'm one of those people that completely disliked the Witcher series. Just couldnt get int the bleak sword and sandals psydo magic fantasy monster flat story thing. But that is just me. Millions of others like it. So good for them.
I think there comes a time for people to just accept that fact that some games may not be a good match for their personality or playstyle and move on.
 
The success of a game is measured in sales and people playing it. CP2077 has succeeded by both metrics, and that's with the disaster that is their console launch.

Noise makers on the internet are not indicative of success or failure.

Disagree. Just by my example... they have my money, Im on their list of players who bought and played this title... yet, I think this game is bad or medicore at most, in its current state. I wouldnt call myself as "happy customer".

For sure it was huge finacial succes, but it has almost nothing to do with overall game quality. Its mostly marketing and CDPR renome. Just look how many copies were sold as preorder... they were sold coz of promisses, not gameplay.
 
I remember very clearly entering peasants houses and robbing all their stuff

The Witcher 3 did not let you enter every house. There were false doors and set-piece buildings throughout Novigraad, Oxenfurt, Vizima, and Skellige. Plus, creating the ability to enter every house would be largely pointless.

Arguably, such detail would be cool for the purposes of playing something like a thief...but pretty much no player has any need to enter every single presented dwelling in a game. It would also require utterly outrageous amounts of work to create content that would be largely ignored by the vast majority of players, or it would utilize a procedural system to populate the internal spaces and leave things feeling very cookie-cutter, very quickly.

In a sense, while it might be cool to explore this in a space as vast as Cyberpunk or GTA, it tends to work much better with more downscaled environments, like the Bethesda approach, where "cities" are comprised of 15-20 buildings...not 1,700.) Ironically, Daggerfall did exactly what you're describing -- every singe doorway led to an internal location. It's nifty...but almost utterly pointless.


The game only sold so many copies due to the success of Witcher 3 and the bethesda Todd Howard style marketing that while not technically complete lies was stretching the truth some what at the very least.

Here's where I completely disagree. CDPR shared their vision for the game as a Work-in-Progress. Having plans for something is not a guarantee that the final version will work that way. Sharing those plans and highlighting the way the devs are trying to get things to work is not promising that the results will be exactly that. Nor even close.

"Everything is subject to change."

This does not mean: "Things that I think are obviously good ideas are going to be in the game, and only minor things will be changed. Also, if something seems cool, it's 100% going to work and will definitely be in the final version."

What it means is: "Everything is subject to change." So, do not let one get one's heart set on any particular thing being or not being in the final version of any game until it is released. Any other interpretation, by the sheer definition of the word, is assumption.

Once again -- these are my words as a member of the community. I'm not speaking for CDPR or as a moderator.


If it was marketed as what it really is, lifeless but pretty open world, no real AI, Cars...lol, linear very short on rails main quest with so many issues, bugs etc then it would not of sold so many copies.

Subjective. I find the environment of the city itself to be very thick with life. There are definitely what I would call clunky and awkward aspects and issues (the general AI behavior for traffic, reactions of NPCs, rather lackluster random encounters) but it does not "ruin" the experience for me in any way. I was very immersed in the feeling of being in a bustling city throughout. Something like GTA might do it better in several ways...but this isn't the same sort of game as GTA. (Plus, I'm hoping we see improvements in this department as patches and expansions are released.)

The main quest is a biggie, and I'm very pleased that CDPR took the stab at handling it this way. I'm also not surprised in the least that many players are dissatisfied with it, but I think more and more people will begin to recognize what was actually done here as time goes on. This isn't a game built like pretty much any other RPG -- with a central trunk of a story that will remain completely linear, offering branching off-shoots that come directly back to the trunk. The game is a web of pathways with no central trunk, leading players to any one of 6, distinct conclusions based on their choices. There is no central trunk -- only a central conflict. The branches converge in a few key scenes -- but arriving at a singular junctures does not invalidate the non-linearity of the rest of the plot. In order to see everything the game has to offer, it will definitely require multiple playthroughs, making different decisions and engaging in different quests / handling quests different ways.

The idea here is that much (if not most) of the content is exclusive to a certain pathway through the game. Therefore, while there might be 200 hours of gameplay, a given playthrough pathway will only reveal 30 or so hours of it. (I don't know the actual size of all content possible...but it's big.) Yes, granted, some people may not like that approach, or they may feel that it still comes across as "too similar" on various playthroughs, but again -- subjective. I personally feel that the amount of variety in the story branching is excellent.


Here is some of my speculation, people are so dissatisfied with this game because deep down they know they have not beaten it.
One of the NPCs can be heard shouting at his phone "idiot devs, who makes a game that cannot be beaten?"
The forth wall is paper thin at times and some of the references are so subtle it's as if they were designed to be missed,
for instance, Jackie describes the Afterlife as "heart 'o' the city", not heart of, the distinction is important because the heart 'o' the city hotel is the first location in The Matrix.
I am currently obsessed with the idea that Night city is a construct and leaving with Alt is actually leaving the construct behind, a much less bitter pill to swallow in that context.
Maybe I'm a bit too 'glass half full' but i spent many years in the bottom of that glass and it did'nt lead anywhere good.
Some user reviews of this game are so over zealously negative that i can't help but feel bad for them, a negative outlook makes the world a really crappy place to be.

I think this simply identifies that you didn't care for the approach to gameplay and/or the narrative itself. I love deep, heady literature (Ancient Greek epics and philosophical journeys...fantasy and science fiction by people like Robert Jordan, Frank Herbert, L.E. Modesitt, Jr....existential films like The Fountain, Arrival, Jacob's Ladder, or Inception...) Other people can't stand the stuff. I'd definitely put the storyline of CP2077 in the same category.
@Rawls mentioned this earlier at some point, and I totally agree. We're dealing with a spin on the classic pursuit of immortality: Gilgamesh, Dr. Faustus, or Beowulf. Here, both Jackie and V are in pursuit of "living forever". The game loads this on pretty gracefully, but pretty heavily right from the outset. Getting to the "Big Leagues". Their first "big-time" job commencing at a bar called "The Afterlife". A whole scene where we see that having a drink named after you -- an achievable form of immortality -- "my name shall live forever" -- requires you to...die...first. Etc. I think the main theme is extremely established.

Then, the twist.

It's possible. Not in a metaphorical sense. In the literal one. Arasaka has found a way to preserve consciousness indefinitely. And now, V faces the the opportunity. As soon as he inserts the chip, he has opened the door to actual immortality. But the cost will be merging his consciousness with Johnny. Right from the get-go, we see that both begin changing the consciousness of the other. There's even a specific scene where the game spells that out, I'd say: where Johnny changes his mind about what they need to do and directly says that V's input is the cause. They're slowly becoming a whole.

So, there's your game and motivation. Is it worth it? If so...how can you deal with it? If not...do you end it? Is true immortailty worth the price?

Then, of course, we have the execution of the gameplay. If the story is going to offer that many branches, it can't hone in on any one narrative arc. It needs to leave a lot open to interpretation. Other than that, we have a linear story. Some players didn't seem to like the balance between motivations and choices presented in the narrative that is there. But without some form of narrative...there's no story or motivation or meaning.

In the end, liking that or not liking that is a subjective preference. It's not a failure.
 
Last edited:
I absolutely love the game, and this comes from someone who is not easily satisfied. The game is not a fail in my eyes (PC version at least), so please guys speak for yourself. I honestly couldn't care less what happened with the game behind closed door. I just hope CDPR keeps improving the game because it's just too good to be abandoned and deserves the best.

I only feel that way about the music (both the ambient and the pop/rock stuff). I love the setting, but not this particular game. If a GM wrote a Cyberpunk session like this, he'd get blacklisted from every local group.
 
Disagree. Just by my example... they have my money, Im on their list of players who bought and played this title... yet, I think this game is bad or medicore at most, in its current state. I wouldnt call myself as "happy customer".

For sure it was huge finacial succes, but it has almost nothing to do with overall game quality. Its mostly marketing and CDPR renome. Just look how many copies were sold as preorder... they were sold coz of promisses, not gameplay.
We are talking about success, not your expectations vs what was delivered, nor even if it was good. The only indicators for success are sales (still good) and active players (still good).

The reason subjective, personal, opinion doesn’t matter is simple to show - I hold a very different point of view on the quality of the game. For me the game is good now, and if they can improve a few things will be great. I’m super excited about the future of the franchise!

My opinion doesn’t matter either, so success cannot be measured that way.

The idea here is that much (if not most) of the content is exclusive to a certain pathway through the game. Therefore, while there might be 200 hours of gameplay, a given playthrough pathway will only reveal 30 or so hours of it. (I don't know the actual size of all content possible...but it's big.) Yes, granted, some people may not like that approach, or they may feel that it still comes across as "too similar" on various playthroughs, but again -- subjective. I personally feel that the amount of variety in the story branching is excellent.
I disagree with you about there not being a central story, but I think I understand why people think choices don’t matter and everything is the same. In short people expect a choice to have a large noticeable difference, especially in the endings. But that isn’t how the game works at all. The differences are small and often personal to the V you played. These changes can be as small as a single line of dialogue appearing where it didn’t appear before because of choices you made in prior sequences. What doesn’t change is the overall look of the story, the big set pieces are not affected much (eg cannot save Jackie or kill Dex and similar things in the endings), but there are differences due to your choices through the game, so very many little ones that all add up.


I only feel that way about the music (both the ambient and the pop/rock stuff). I love the setting, but not this particular game. If a GM wrote a Cyberpunk session like this, he'd get blacklisted from every local group.
Sounds like I would hate your local groups.
You want to black list a GM because they have a strong central story covered in a web of connected elements that players can explore.
A session? This is an epic campaign!
 
Last edited:
i think the hype was this games downfall they hyped it up to no ends everyone was thinking it would be game of the century. If this game came out of left field and there was no rush from hype, so not as many bugs it would have been received better even with the police, AI and delays
 
I am not a developer, programmist, or anything like that.

But think about it logically. With the Witcher 3, CDPR had lots of experience. The Witcher 1 and 2 are games with lots of flaws (especially 2, with its clunky inventory, broken minimap etc.) but they provided them experience for the Witcher 3. They knew (more or less) what to do and what not to do, because all the Witcher games share the same setting: a medieval fantasy with lots of combat, intense story, and lore.

This is not the case with Cyberpunk 2077. The game is their first title set in a futuristic setting with guns, cars, skyscrapers. They even changed the camera perspective.

They simply didn't have enough experience with that kind of game, and they failed.

I wouldn't say the game failed.

They underestimated how much time it takes to create a game like this. They aimed for a release date and ran into many issues with the games performance. Aside from that; there were other aspects they wanted to improve. They knew that too many delays would hurt their reputation, so they felt forced to release the game.

The game should have been released on PC, first. That would have given the team additional time to work out flaws with the console version. Anyone who was desperate to get their hands on the title, would have went out and joined the PC crowd. Everyone else would have waited patiently for a functional console release for current generation. Last but not least; they could have done the Series X and PS5 release; once more consoles become available for purchase. The PC only had minor flaws. Console had a whole bowl of kinks. As a result, everyone once the PC version. I'm not even a PC gamer and I'm saving money towards PC parts, so I can enjoy the future revamp on the game in a high graphic interface.
 
The game failed because CDPR released an unfinished product. It's that simple. It's also painfully clear that they really didn't know what kind of game they wanted to make, or even what genre they were making (the fact that the game switched from RPG to action-adventure is a huge red flag).

What they ended up with is:
  • a large city like GTA but completely lifeless due to braindead AI, no interesting events/activities
  • a variety of gangs in territories like Saints Row that are completely pointless other than combatant visual variety
  • a Borderlands-style loot system without any of the interesting variety of weapons/customization.
It's like they got a new design director every year and just added their favorite feature on top of existing ones without thinking if it made any sense or fit together.
 
Its didn't fail but I assume one of the corporates asked "Can you play the story start to finish?" answer was "Yes you can" so it was shipped - to a million hardcore RPG players that got inside game, went straight to the edges of the world, made perk point allocation/gear loadout in the name of fine tuning and were met with some red flags;

The world is not finished

You can't drive because open world streaming is broken

The game's math is broken

You can't fine tune V's build or explore without seeing incompleteness and inconsistency.
 
The problems with this game in my opinion come down to three main issues:
1. It's extremely ambition from a technical standpoint, and they didn't get it to work exactly as they wanted.
2. The story isn't outstanding, and gets in the way of enjoying the game as an open world.
3. The RPG systems aren't overly well developed, leading to very overpowered characters.
 
CDPR should have know that PC players were going to find all the kinks very quickly. Why they even bothered releasing it on PC, along with the console version is beyond my understanding. In reality, they should have released it for PC and then later releases for the console. That would have at least hid some of the kinks. With it releasing on console, it easily got compared to the PC version which is like comparing The White House to Play Boy Mansion. Two entirely different builds. Once pandemic restrictions permitted the team to return to work; they could have began console coding for base generation platforms. To keep console players enthused; the team could have released a small demo. Eventually the game would have came out with much stable performance. Then campaign DLC could have begun production.
 
Here's where I completely disagree. CDPR shared their vision for the game as a Work-in-Progress. Having plans for something is not a guarantee that the final version will work that way. Sharing those plans and highlighting the way the devs are trying to get things to work is not promising that the results will be exactly that. Nor even close.

"Everything is subject to change."

This does not mean: "Things that I think are obviously good ideas are going to be in the game, and only minor things will be changed. Also, if something seems cool, it's 100% going to work and will definitely be in the final version."

What it means is: "Everything is subject to change." So, do not let one get one's heart set on any particular thing being or not being in the final version of any game until it is released. Any other interpretation, by the sheer definition of the word, is assumption.

Once again -- these are my words as a member of the community. I'm not speaking for CDPR or as a moderator.
Sure you are right that in it's precise meaning this is what it mean and in that sense CDPR or any other gaming company is correct in what they are saying.

But from a "realistic" view or what to call it. Assuming that I owned a gaming company and I released a trailer of the most insane graphics and gameplay ever, basically everything in this game is possible according to my trailer. However I have slapped a "Work in progress, everything is subject to change" on it. And pretty much throughout the whole development whenever I release videos from the game, it's the same sick graphics, gameplay etc. And then when I release it, it's a extremely bad looking game, with none of the features in it at all.

And then when people complained, I simply state that "It was work in progress and everything were subject to change." Now im not suggesting that this is what CDPR did, at least not this extreme, my point is that, if all gaming companies simply released trailers and talking about what features that they would like to have in their game, rather than what their realistic goals or actual plans were, when the final game were released. Then it's wouldn't take many releases before people were sick and tired of it.
And honestly I think that is what is about to happen now in a much larger scale then before, people are sick and tired of companies releasing buggy games, with the idea of them "fixing it later" together with so much cut content compared to what they promised, loot boxes etc.
CDPR I think was just what caused it to overflow, because they had hyped it so much and people expected them to deliver what they promised.

Remember before CP, you had a long range of other gaming companies that pissed off people as well with poor releases. Most people play games as a hobby or to be entertained at least, and in some cases might be waiting years for some of the games only to be "screwed" over by a catastrophic release.

There ought to be some form of respect between gaming companies and players, we all share a passion for games, at least the people that develop the games and I honestly also think most of the CEO's cares. But the norm in creating AAA games or the whole way of developing software in the gaming industry, just seem to have sort of accepted that you can almost release anything, no matter how bad quality it is and not talking bad gameplay, but literally just releasing something that is hardly functional.

Maybe it's the whole AAA industry that needs a makeover in how they develop games, how this whole organisation and structuring is done, I don't know. But I really don't think it should be acceptable for them to just be able to write "Work in progress" on their marketing material and then basically be allow to tell people whatever they want, that just seems wrong in my eyes.
 
This trend has been going on for years...
I can attest to this. I'm literally buying a PS3 and in all likelihood a PS 2 simply to play some older game that are far superior to the new ones. Dragon Quarter Breath of fire and Tokyo Jungle as a couple of examples. Lost Dimension is another, monster rancher is another I typically don't like going back to older games due to graphics and less streamlined control schemes, but these few games alone ARE much better than the literally thousands of games which have come out over the last few years with rare exceptions.
 
I think this simply identifies that you didn't care for the approach to gameplay and/or the narrative itself.

I know my Matrix headcanon is inaccurate but it's a playful way to look at the world, one of many i have addopted so far, one was that it's just a BD made by BD studio called CDPR but that wasn't interesting enough, although CDPR is shown as a stock option in corpo plaza so who knows?
 
Last edited:
I think this simply identifies that you didn't care for the approach to gameplay and/or the narrative itself. I love deep, heady literature (Ancient Greek epics and philosophical journeys...fantasy and science fiction by people like Robert Jordan, Frank Herbert, L.E. Modesitt, Jr....existential films like The Fountain, Arrival, Jacob's Ladder, or Inception...) Other people can't stand the stuff. I'd definitely put the storyline of CP2077 in the same category.
@Rawls mentioned this earlier at some point, and I totally agree. We're dealing with a spin on the classic pursuit of immortality: Gilgamesh, Dr. Faustus, or Beowulf. Here, both Jackie and V are in pursuit of "living forever". The game loads this on pretty gracefully, but pretty heavily right from the outset. Getting to the "Big Leagues". Their first "big-time" job commencing at a bar called "The Afterlife". A whole scene where we see that having a drink named after you -- an achievable form of immortality -- "my name shall live forever" -- requires you to...die...first. Etc. I think the main theme is extremely established.

Then, the twist.

It's possible. Not in a metaphorical sense. In the literal one. Arasaka has found a way to preserve consciousness indefinitely. And now, V faces the the opportunity. As soon as he inserts the chip, he has opened the door to actual immortality. But the cost will be merging his consciousness with Johnny. Right from the get-go, we see that both begin changing the consciousness of the other. There's even a specific scene where the game spells that out, I'd say: where Johnny changes his mind about what they need to do and directly says that V's input is the cause. They're slowly becoming a whole.

So, there's your game and motivation. Is it worth it? If so...how can you deal with it? If not...do you end it? Is true immortailty worth the price?
It's multilayered like an onion and there's no way it came to be like that by accident. It's not only philosophical themes. There are takes on many things if you look. I feel like a madman writing this, simply because I didn't expect games industry ever producing anything like this. The Outer Worlds took my by surprise and it's far more based on certain real life topics and very clever take on them than it's given credit for. Amateur theater group could make a play with just very little props, just a moonhat and a desk and heroes come in, because story isn't about a hat or a desk and there's a lot more. Learn how to do apolitical satire, explore that topic, because while Outer Worlds benefits from its props, writing is just so strong that it can enable other things than just other game.

Cyberpunk 2077 is different kind of game, I don't mean mechanics and that, but it has different approach and does it's cross-section of society in a way that builds up and can hit like a 10 pound sledge hammer in certain ending. Even there's far more resources behind CP2077, it also really takes advantage from that. It's definitely a game people can play even if they don't necessarily tend to invest their time in games.
 
The problems with this game in my opinion come down to three main issues:
1. It's extremely ambition from a technical standpoint, and they didn't get it to work exactly as they wanted.
2. The story isn't outstanding, and gets in the way of enjoying the game as an open world.
3. The RPG systems aren't overly well developed, leading to very overpowered characters.
You are playing the wrong game if you want to spend hours on a rampage in the city lmao
 
Making a game with guns and skyscrapers when you previously made a fantasy should not result in you forgetting how to code or write a story, it is not a blowing transition.
 
I disagree with you about there not being a central story, but I think I understand why people think choices don’t matter and everything is the same. In short people expect a choice to have a large noticeable difference, especially in the endings. But that isn’t how the game works at all. The differences are small and often personal to the V you played. These changes can be as small as a single line of dialogue appearing where it didn’t appear before because of choices you made in prior sequences. What doesn’t change is the overall look of the story, the big set pieces are not affected much (eg cannot save Jackie or kill Dex and similar things in the endings), but there are differences due to your choices through the game, so very many little ones that all add up.

(Heh -- this may start getting technical enough that it may feel like splitting hairs, but I would argue it's truly not. At least, not from the standpoint of a writer or a designer.)

There are "blocks" of linear narrative, yes. However, there truly isn't a central "plot". For example, in TW3, regardless of the amount of branching content, the central storyline always unfolds along a defined, narrative arc. You will always begin the story with the dream sequence in KM. You will always go to White Orchard next. You will always visit Vizima immediately afterward...you will always resolve the Bloody Baron situation before the plot moves on to the Novigrad section...etc...

This typical type of established plot structure creates a central theme that will be explored according to the typical narrative arc. Then, I can toss in optional side content or some key scenes that change some results -- but those results will not alter the narrative. It will end with Geralt facing the Wild Hunt. Period. We can argue that all of that wonderful choice and consequence did little to the story other than alter the set dressing a bit. A very nice illusion. (Which is not a negative criticism in any way -- that's what all entertainment media is [books, films, or games]: they're illusions.)

CP2077 does not truly have such a defined structure. For example, after the initial gig to get the chip...that's it for a central plotline that travels along an established, narrative arc.
I never need to rescue Evelyn. I don't ever need to meet with Takemura. I don't ever need to try to track down Hellman. Etc.
The game offers complete freedom of choice in how I proceed, and does not prevent the player from reaching an endgame unless they do a specific thing.

While thinking of this in an isolated way, one chunk of options at a time, it may seem like no big deal. But this is actually a bit of a nightmare for purposes of balance, accounting for every possible combination of choices, and very importantly, resolving the narrative of every possible combination of choices in such a way that does not only not shoehorn the player into a linear path...but actually creates MORE choices. It's a series of concerns that will start to become quickly exponential.

And now the game is also supposed to be creating narratives that engage and motivate the player. down whatever collection of choices they happened to make.

I can imagine the writers and quest designers probably "learned to have fun tearing their hair out", so to speak. :LOL:

But in the end, there will need to be limitations in some fashion. It's not possible to code a video game to organically create stories, dialogue, etc. the way a human being could during a PnP session of a role-playing game. So I'd argue that there's a defined theme revolving around dealing with Johnny and the reality of what the shard will mean for V's future, but I'd say the linear plot ends after the gig to steal the shard. That's the inciting event for the rest of the game, and everything is absolutely open after that. A crisscrossing web of potential plotlines that can be traveled in virtually any combination or avoided altogether to reach one of the six endings.

Whether people like the execution itself or not, I'd say the structure of it is pretty incredible.


Sure you are right that in it's precise meaning this is what it mean and in that sense CDPR or any other gaming company is correct in what they are saying.

But from a "realistic" view or what to call it. Assuming that I owned a gaming company and I released a trailer of the most insane graphics and gameplay ever, basically everything in this game is possible according to my trailer. However I have slapped a "Work in progress, everything is subject to change" on it. And pretty much throughout the whole development whenever I release videos from the game, it's the same sick graphics, gameplay etc. And then when I release it, it's a extremely bad looking game, with none of the features in it at all.

And then when people complained, I simply state that "It was work in progress and everything were subject to change." Now im not suggesting that this is what CDPR did, at least not this extreme, my point is that, if all gaming companies simply released trailers and talking about what features that they would like to have in their game, rather than what their realistic goals or actual plans were, when the final game were released. Then it's wouldn't take many releases before people were sick and tired of it.
And honestly I think that is what is about to happen now in a much larger scale then before, people are sick and tired of companies releasing buggy games, with the idea of them "fixing it later" together with so much cut content compared to what they promised, loot boxes etc.
CDPR I think was just what caused it to overflow, because they had hyped it so much and people expected them to deliver what they promised.

Remember before CP, you had a long range of other gaming companies that pissed off people as well with poor releases. Most people play games as a hobby or to be entertained at least, and in some cases might be waiting years for some of the games only to be "screwed" over by a catastrophic release.

There ought to be some form of respect between gaming companies and players, we all share a passion for games, at least the people that develop the games and I honestly also think most of the CEO's cares. But the norm in creating AAA games or the whole way of developing software in the gaming industry, just seem to have sort of accepted that you can almost release anything, no matter how bad quality it is and not talking bad gameplay, but literally just releasing something that is hardly functional.

Maybe it's the whole AAA industry that needs a makeover in how they develop games, how this whole organisation and structuring is done, I don't know. But I really don't think it should be acceptable for them to just be able to write "Work in progress" on their marketing material and then basically be allow to tell people whatever they want, that just seems wrong in my eyes.

I would argue here that the main issue was lack of communication. It's not that promises were made then broken in any way, it's just that changes were made or elements of the game cut and nothing was ever publicly addressed. (At least, not in detail.) Yes, this was a negative shock to a lot of people -- and there really are technical issues that I readily acknowledge need to be fixed -- but there was never a lie spoken.

It's the same as saying, "I offer delicious steaks at my restaurant -- a top-shelf dining experience." Well...maybe some people feel that it's not "top-shelf" unless steaks are dry-aged. Others would argue it's not "top-shelf" unless there's an offer for lobster tail to go with the steak. Wait -- there's no Bernaise sauce!? Then it's "obviously" not "top-shelf"! This place offers only ribeye, sirloin, or NY strip!? There's no filet mingon or chateubriand!?!? And they have the AUDACITY to call this steakhouse "TOP-SHELF"!?!?!? HOLY @#$%@! The glasses aren't made of actual crystal!! They're only GLASS!!! THIS IS NOT ANYWHERE CLOSE TO FREAKING "TOP-SHELF"!!! And, etc...

You get my point. It's not up to a restaurant to ensure that every subjective detail of what "top-shelf" dining means to every subjective customer that walks through the door is met. It's job is to provide good steaks. Hence, if I decorate my restaurant with patio furniture and have paper napkins -- I'm still free to call it "top-shelf" based on the food. Liking it or not liking it is up to the customer. I'm not responsible for their individual preferences. I'm responsible for offering my vision. Anyone who doesn't like it simply won't eat at my restaurant. And the people that do like it will continue to eat at my restaurant. But no one is free to point the finger at me and say I'm "lying" based on their, personal, subjective interpretation of what "top-shelf" should or should not entail. End result is people either like the steaks or they don't. Personal preference. Subjective.

Frankly, I think that the game delivers a pretty awesome gameplay experience with a lot of rough edges. I still think it qualifies as "next-gen" (even if it's AI isn't as good at GTA's AI). I still think it is a quality RPG experience where choice and consequence really matters (even if Detroit: Become Human offered more choices and outcomes). I still think it offers a wide range of playstyles, significantly effective skills, and cool stealth / combat / dialogue pathways (even if XYZ game is more intricate / better balanced / more varied). Too many subjective concerns involved in all of this (and every other game for that matter) to ever say "this game is lying about what it offers and is a failure."

As for the fixing issues after release, I used to be really bothered with this before I first worked with a studio on a game. It's, frankly, borderline impossible to release a game this big without major issues. And that is going to get worse and worse as games get bigger and bigger. That's just simple cause and effect. Even 1,000 QA testers working around the clock for a year would not find half of the odd issues that can arise in systems this complex. (But millions of players world-wide on various platforms definitely will! Guaranteed! :p )

And that's not just for CP2077 -- that will be true for any game that tries to do the gigantic, open-world, non-linear thing. Bug-free is just not going to happen. As I've mentioned in the past, if we want games on this scale...then issues are going to be part of the package. If we want games that are guaranteed to work without bugs...they're going to be about 10 hours long and limited to "Left", "Right", "Jump", "Attack", and "Next".

And, just in keeping with the new tradition, I remind all that these are my, personal arguments. I am not speaking for CDPR.
 
The game offers complete freedom of choice in how I proceed, and does not prevent the player from reaching an endgame unless they do a specific thing.
Note: I really like the structure of the game.

But you are incorrect about things locking you out of an endgame. There are 3 things that are required to reach the Point of No Return.
  1. You must talk to Takemura and complete his quest up to talking to Hanako via proxy.
  2. You must get the blueprints from Hellman.
  3. You must get Alt's help.

I have learnt this because I have played without talking to Takemura (which locks all the main story content out of the game and some side quests, hell don't want to here from Johnny - don't talk to Takemura) and I have spoken to Hanako in the apartment without getting Alt (which locks the Point of No Return out).

There are a lot of branches even in the main story, and then there are side quests attached to it that expand things more and then there are side quests attached to side quests and on it goes. But there is definitely a main story that you must progress along to reach an endgame.

Frankly, I think that the game delivers a pretty awesome gameplay experience with a lot of rough edges. I still think it qualifies as "next-gen" (even if it's AI isn't as good at GTA's AI). I still think it is a quality RPG experience where choice and consequence really matters (even if Detroit: Become Human offered more choices and outcomes). I still think it offers a wide range of playstyles, significantly effective skills, and cool stealth / combat / dialogue pathways (even if XYZ game is more intricate / better balanced / more varied). Too many subjective concerns involved in all of this (and every other game for that matter) to ever say "this game is lying about what it offers and is a failure."
Amen!!
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom