Unfortunately this is true and they added more features like DLSS just recently.
This absence of ANY news makes me sad.
Last edited:
- Status
Unfortunately this is true and they added more features like DLSS just recently.
This absence of ANY news makes me sad.
Not really, there is "only" two versions sold on consoles (PS4/XB1). Versions who can run on several console generations. An player on a "fat" XB1 bought the exact same game as another player on Serie X.
Consoles are simply a "significant" part of "owners"... Anyway, in this thread, who care about consoles
Yes, considering what happened to the company (they were hacked and had their internal data and employees personal details auctioned on the black market) and the restructuring combined with the lockdowns and restrictions on everything (massive disruptions in global transport and access to technology in general) they managed to deliver two of the most expansive patches I have ever seen not to mention the myriad of other fixes.
I'm not saying it's enough or that it affected my hiatus from the game at all since late September but they are working bloody hard and I'm sick of people downplaying the developers' efforts like this.
It's disrespectful and quite frankly ill-mannered, I really hope you never find yourself in a similar situation and have people like you talking down to you in this fashion while you're working as hard as you can to please such people.
Peace, choom.
Making a comparison with a company, that had to release their game on one single platform (the most powerful one at that), messed it up and took half a year to make it at least playable isn't as big of an own as you think it is.
Horizon at pc launch was more playable than Cyberpunk is now. Also Horizon after 6 months was not "at least playable". It was fixed. And I said "six months" just in case I got it wrong, because I think it was more like 4.
The game was released on PC with all mechanics and systems implemented from day one and did not require rebalance mods or patches of any actual in-game mechanics.
The game runs natively on PS4, even though its hard drive "is what it is".
Creators of Horizon Zero Dawn took The Witcher 3 game idea and made it better in every way. Gamers and reviewers described Horizon Zero Dawn as "TW3 but improved".
I can't remember which way it went: either CDPR made a Horizon fanart, or Guerilla Games made a fanart of TW3. Either way both companies saw one another as equal.
Downplaying the quality of Horizon ZD and the amount of dedication to make it right to PC gamers is downright arrogant and disrespectful, because they handled it exactly how CDPR themselves would just a few years ago.
Probably because it was a 3 year old game by then?
I don't want to sound mean, but I don't really care about "gamers" and "reviewers" if they think that HZD does anything better than Witcher 3. If someone think this way, they are wrong, simple as that.
I'm not downplaying anything, not really.
Cyberpunk 2077 was and is a messy and unfinished game, there is no discussion about that. And they have to fix it, undeniably. But comparing it to a goddamn port of a 3 year old game - that still took half a year to be fixed on pc - is just disingenuous.
I get what you're saying, but people don't have to agree with you. We're not all the same, and some of us see it very differently than you do. It's just how it is. We're all allowed to have an opinion, whether you find that opinion disrespectful or not.
I for one, find it disrespectful and ill-mannered that you're targeting just one person in the thread like that, when there's obviously several people with the same opinion/expectations.
Last edited:
I don't want to contribute to taking the thread off topic, but this is just not accurate. The visuals are remarkably better. While visuals shouldn't carry a title, they are a notable feature. If Cyberpunk, or any other title for that matter, can be complimented on it's visuals, so can HZD. Zero Dawn is a far better rendered world. It was at release and it is today.
I can't thoroughly comment on TW3 combat as I haven't played and I'm not going to play until the next gen upgrade is released, but the combat does not look like anything special. This isn't a dig, it's an observation. I'll grant credit that It is from a less experienced and smaller studio. It was also a multi-platform title so there are limitations that apply when you stretch your budget and engineering in that manner.
From what I've seen of the story - I imagine I'll find more satisfaction with TW3 once all is said and done. People have talked it up a lot, but like visuals; the story can't carry a title. These are games, not movies. We'll see what boxes it ticks. Horizon Zero Dawn is practically a Nausicaa clone with robo-dinosaurs and a less advanced human race but it does manage to pull the player in at many points with intriguing delivery and quality acting. The ending sequence was a let down followed by a somber moment that just barely redeems it.
Depends. I would argue, that art-style and overall design are much better in Witcher, which, unlike raw graphic potential, ages much better.
There are also a lot of games that were carried purely by story - games, like Planescape: Torment, Kotor I-II, Mass Effect trilogy. These games, just like Witcher, are not only extremely well written, they allow for player input in forming their narrative. And interactivity is a defining feature of video games. This is why games that allow you to change course and/or conclusion of a story are much superior to games that don't - for example, Dishonored is a superior game in comparison to the Last of Us part 2, despite the fact that both games explore the same themes (revenge shouldn't drive your actions, coping with loss of a loved one, etc,) and the fact that Last of Us is more cinematic in it's presentation/production quality.
Last edited:
Yes, interactivity is a defining feature. It's the defining feature I would say. That is why I remarked that a game shouldn't be carried by it's story or it's visuals. Leaning on and being carried by are two different things.
I'll elaborate. If a game has a great story, but all the moments in between that are mediocre - it has failed in essence. You being able to make input into the story, or at least feel like you have, is a factor in differentiating a game from a movie when a game leans heavily into it's story. Games don't have to though, as they're more experiential than voyeuristic in nature... though some people do enjoy watching them more than playing. A game could be simple entertainment just to get your mind of off life's responsibilities for a moment. It could have a rich story with fantastic characters - it can do this while lacking cut scenes, and to great effect.
When I say carried; I mean that in the most literal sense. The titles you cited are uplifted by their stories and characters, but they are not carried. They're good games. You can't have quite the same experience watching them that you can playing them.
Last edited:
Exactly.
The simple truth is that even if CDPR came out of the shadows to tell us "the patch will be released on the 2nd of March! It will contain massive amounts of content including XYZ" a sizeable amount of people would still call them liars, thieves or whatever else they might think of because it doesn't contain exactly what they want.
I don't support CDPR's communication strategy, not one bit, but holy shit do I understand it.
Eh, fair enough.
Although, about the last point - in the games I've listed, story is part of the gameplay. You can't have the same experience watching them, instead of playing them, because interactions and choices are supposed to be made by you, the player. Seeing someone saving the Queen on Onderon, for example, isn't the same as doing it yourself - in part, because this isn't the only option.
And I agree about great story - by itself, it can't carry the game. With that being said, games like Detroit are nothing, but pure story - yet, they are still engaging, because interacting with it is the core gameplay feature. This is what I was getting at - story in a video game, ideally, should be both good and allow for agency.
Last edited:
We're in agreement, but I think we're both being semantic about it. It's pretty easy when talking about something you deeply care about and another person is sharing a thoughtful opinion about it, right?
I'm not surprised you mentioned Detroit. It came to mind, but I feel that's a fitting example of something that can be enjoyed to completion through watching it. I still admire 'movie-games' for what the quality ones do in terms of story telling. I don't view them as an ooga booga and they have their place, but they just don't afford the kind of experience I want most of the time and I certainly don't think we want all games to be like them.
Oh, absolutely. I love having discussions like this, especially with someone, who is willing to go in-depth into the topic. I think it really helps both parties to analyze and appreciate something you love about art even more, on a deeper level.
And yeah, Detroit is more of an extreme example to illustrate a broader point. I wouldn't want every game to be a cinematic David Cage experience™, that's for sure.
CDPR has already shown with TW3 that they don't care about PC, so I don't know what there is to be excited about. We'll be lucky if they don't downgrade the game even further.
Combat isn't the core interactive component of an RPG.
Combat isn't the core interactive component of an RPG.
What?
Are you talking to me or giving your thoughts on this subject yourself? We weren't talking about a game type specifically. We were discussing media principles.
I got plenty of opinions myself, doesn't mean I gotta' share them left and right every time, opinions are not that important to be fair, especially if they're just there to provoke and not offer anything constructive.
And I'm not looking for people to agree with me on it, I just want a bit more balance in all of this, it's either praise or disdain, none of them are exactly helpful in the long run, not after a year and two months now same regurgitated passive aggressive comments by the same users...
I have criticized the game itself plenty of times and I have never disrespected the work behind it, you'll probably find out what I mean when you work on a big project really hard and don't quite make it all the way to the end in exactly the fashion you first envisioned in the beginning.
And also they have offered refunds as soon as possible to everyone, I mean seriously cut them some slack they didn't exactly cut-tail and ran with the money, they're still working on it really hard and changing the way they approach things internally and externally.
I'm sure they're not just lazying around smoking cigars on piles of money laughing at all the poor hungry people that spent their last dime on a broken game that was purposefully mismarketed to swindle the hard working folk out of their dough.
Just saying a bit of moderation (both ways, unchecked praise and unchecked hatred) can go a long way in getting your point across without looking for confrontation or seemingly trying to look edgy and cool.
Cheers.
not sure why you argue tw3 vs hzd, which both are pretty much best games of the decade, and are miles better than cyberpunk, which is after years just an average game, minus graphics.
If you look into cp2077 without fanboying, you would understand that this game is pretender, it pretends to be open world but actually it is very closed door / area game, you simply cannot enter majority of areas especially after questing, it pretends to be rpg with choices matters but 99.9 choices doesn't matter and i am not saying linear story is bad, but it was advertized otherwise, it pretends to be driver game but have worse driving than average mobile game. And ai / npcs and plethora of bugs? Also this game have plenty of meaningless things like stories in shards who needs that, and overall it felt unfinished as most quests dont have an ending it just left in the middle of the road.
In the end cp2077 is not a good game, not a bad game - it is just average. everything here is subpar of what you would expect after watching the videos.
Difference TW3 and HZD might not have that good graphics, everything what we have there is done right.
If you look into cp2077 without fanboying, you would understand that this game is pretender, it pretends to be open world but actually it is very closed door / area game, you simply cannot enter majority of areas especially after questing, it pretends to be rpg with choices matters but 99.9 choices doesn't matter and i am not saying linear story is bad, but it was advertized otherwise, it pretends to be driver game but have worse driving than average mobile game. And ai / npcs and plethora of bugs? Also this game have plenty of meaningless things like stories in shards who needs that, and overall it felt unfinished as most quests dont have an ending it just left in the middle of the road.
In the end cp2077 is not a good game, not a bad game - it is just average. everything here is subpar of what you would expect after watching the videos.
Difference TW3 and HZD might not have that good graphics, everything what we have there is done right.
- Status