True but why then have them in the first place? Why an huge beautiful map when you are not going to do anything with it... the way the game is now it would work perfectly fine with a level design and worldbuilding comparable with mass effect...
I said the exact same thing. The gorgeous city is a complete waste.
Yes, you can judge things by "How close do they come to what they tried to be", and I have no problem saying that GTA V is damn near perfect at reaching its stated goals and Cyberpunk falls short in many major ways.
However, what Cyberpunk was shooting for is so completely different from what GTA was shooting for that the comparison is irrelevant. You can compare the quality of a hammer and a saw, but a high quality hammer will not cut wood better than a low quality saw.
Meh, I think OP has a good list of issues there (except maybe the garbage point). NC does feel dead after a few hrs of exploring and there is so much you could interact with. I don't even drive anywhere because it is so boring, just fast travel everywhere because you won't miss out on anything. I have 150 hrs in the game and have "explored" a ton but I feel like it was a waste of time because there is so little to find for your efforts. I'm not sure how much you have played but I feel its only a handful of hrs because the empty NC feeling isn't a small unimportant fault, it's kind of a big deal.
Almost all issues one could have with this game are legitimate... except for political issues...
Well... why would CDPR then try to cut wood with a low quality hammer? What Cyberpunk was shooting for the devs them selves couldn't tell you! It sure as hell is not what was shown in the extensive marketing campaign... it was marketed as THE most deeply engaging open world RPG ever... and what we got is some kind of Frankenstein's monster stitched together from a mediocre action adventure with a decent but short story, a horrendous looter shooter and an beautiful but utterly pointless map...
k so you haven't played GTA so you don't understand why people compare it to GTA, yet you try to argue it can't be compared.
I completely agree that they shouldn't have wasted any time on driving, because it's irrelevant to the game. I don't agree that the map is pointless, it's an atmospheric experience that most games don't even come close to and is actually fun to explore on foot. It could be more interactive and it would be nice if it contained a greater variety of random encounters, but the game is definitely better by its inclusion.
The RPG/lootershooter mechanics are definitely less than stellar because of how poorly balanced everything is, and that's something they will have to really work out if they want the online standalone to be worth anyone's time.
No, I'm arguing that if one person says "I liked GTA better than Cyberpunk" and another person says "GTA doesn't interest me at all but Cyberpunk does" then obviously these games are not made for exactly the same audience, and can't be compared as though they were.
Last edited:
Now you're just moving the goalposts. First it was "you can't compare them", now it's "making a conclusion about which game is better as a whole", lol. The thread topic was on the implementation of the open world, not which game was overall better.
If you wanted, the discussion could move to any number of other games that ARE better "as a whole".
And since Cyberpunk is sadly nothing more than a mediocre looter shooter action adventure with a decent story... that is going to be a long list!
Is it? If the world can't be interacted with, then how is it any better than a more confined map with a higher density of content?
Driving around at night, in the rain, with music on is probably the most atmospheric thing in the game, and you think they should have not "wasted any time" on it. Really.
Getting around would be horrible if driving wasn't added. The "fast" travel system is so garbage I would've rage-quit the game ages ago if that was the only option.
Sorry, but courting the GTA crowd has made this game worse in every way. They wasted a bunch of development resources on something that adds nothing to the actual gameplay, and almost every single person you see griping and whining without providing meaningful feedback around here seem to come from that element of the player base.
They should have put their effort on making the best possible first person RPG and everyone they would have lost that way is currently just dragging them down anyways.
They should have put their effort on making the best possible first person RPG and everyone they would have lost that way is currently just dragging them down anyways.
People who think this game does anything really well has not played many games. Heck even WATCH DOGS handled the open world better than this game and that game isn't even really good.
What games are you comparing this to? You already admitted you haven't played GTA. Are you comparing it with fortnite and league of legends? Lol.
Is "not meaningful" just code for anything you don't agree with or care about?
And you're moving the goalposts again. First, the game wasn't comparable to GTA, now supposedly it is "courting the GTA crowd"?
What the fuck am I reading?
You are in MASSIVE denial. The people complaining about this game is coming from every background because this game tried to market itself as many things. A deep RPG. A massive atmospheric open world, having a deep stealth system, having an amazing story, a great action game, a great FPS, an immersive sim. This game marketed itself as being everything. Every type of player was attracted to this game and let down. Players from all genres are taking a dump on this game. Making a baseless assumption isn't doing any favors for you.
I came to this game because I thought it was going to be a RPG with a good story where your choices matter. Now that I know that aspect doesn't even EXIST I can't make fun of it, so I just make fun of the mediocre attempt to be like GTA and how shallow the world that does exist, is. This game sucks at everything except art direction and story (and even then that ending is wack)