The game seem very ambitious

+
If a game can deliver on its promises, then that's the goal. Unfortunately, game development has a lot of twists and turns, making things that were once possible, no longer possible, which inevitably ends up leading to promises broken. It sucks, and it makes the fans feel like they were cheated, but some things are hard or impossible to avoid.

It's why I believe in not making firm promises when it comes to game development. Because anything could happen that could take your ability to fulfill that promise away.

Better to give the fans a steady stream of updates on the game, rather than give the fans a bunch of promises, then hide away behind their work if/when they realize those promises can't be fulfilled, until the game gets released, which then gets slammed by fans and critics alike for not fulfilling what was promised to them.
 
Last edited:
A lot of it comes down to management. There's a a balance they must achieve in establishing the vision of the project, it must be well-defined enough so that the whole team can see where they are going, strong enough that it's able to stay on track while being bombarded with every 'wouldn't it be cool if' or 'no more' that is thrown its way, and yet flexible enough that it can adapt if it hits an insurmountable obstacle.

Duke Nukem suffered badly as George Broussard couldn't focus. Months of work were constantly being thrown out because he kept changing his mind about what the game should look like, how it should play, and even what engine it should run on. It's cool to be a wild-eyed idealist with lots of big ideas, but without a level-headed pragmatist to reign him in, the project lost it's way.

Mass Effect: Andromeda was also a management failure but almost the exact opposite reason. The corpo rats stuck their noses into deep and said you will build the game like this, on this engine (which didn't support RPG mechanics) and have it done by this day. Without the freedom to create their vision and the time needed to see it though, well, you know the rest.

I'm honestly not the least bit worried about it. [snip]
Please don't use a smaller font. Not everyone has optical implants yet.
 
Mass Effect: Andromeda was also a management failure but almost the exact opposite reason. The corpo rats stuck their noses into deep and said you will build the game like this, on this engine (which didn't support RPG mechanics) and have it done by this day. Without the freedom to create their vision and the time needed to see it though, well, you know the rest

To be fair, it wasn't just EA. The development team themselves screwed up. People left, which hurt the game really bad. Jason Schreier did an article on it, IIRC.

The game was still a huge disappointment. I played it once, moved on, and never looked back. At least we still have the trilogy.
 
Last edited:
To me, the developers screwing up is also a management issue. If the team was not the right one for the task, they should have not been given the task to begin with. If they started screwing up part way through then corrective measures should have been taken at the time.

EA looked at that mess that was ME:A and said 'release it anyway'. They could kept it in development for longer, they could have handed the project over to a more experienced team, or even just written it off as a lost cause. They didn't, and ultimately, the buck stops with them.
 
To me, the developers screwing up is also a management issue. If the team was not the right one for the task, they should have not been given the task to begin with. If they started screwing up part way through then corrective measures should have been taken at the time.

EA looked at that mess that was ME:A and said 'release it anyway'. They could kept it in development for longer, they could have handed the project over to a more experienced team, or even just written it off as a lost cause. They didn't, and ultimately, the buck stops with them.
IIRC, EA gave them 6 months more for development and they said no. Which was a stupid decision. They could've worked on those animations and all the bugs. I found my game getting worse as it went on, to the point that I couldn't play without constantly missing the days of the trilogy.

Nevertheless, I still agree with you. BioWare gave the series to a team that worked on DLC (though I enjoyed the Citadel DLC) so their main guys could work on Anthem (which I don't have much hope for, tbh). Only by absolutely nothing going wrong could they have lived up to the game's legacy. And they failed right at the start by being given an engine that has nothing to do with RPGs.

And now the series has been shelved for the time being. Which is bittersweet, to me at least.
 
Do you know something we dont? If yes, then please show us. I'm literally starved for content.

No. but i suggest you dont watch anymore content. so its fresh when it comes out. CDPR are gonna do a full blowout when it comes to this game. they are not holding back.
 
Yep, highly ambitious.

And if it were any developer other than CDPR or the pre-EA Bioware, I'd be skeptical. But it is CDPR, so I'm not worried about either option you suggested.
 
It is, its their most ambitious game yet, from what Ive read. I have no doubts it isnt, they are still quite unknown company, gotta push hard.
 
It is, its their most ambitious game yet, from what Ive read. I have no doubts it isnt, they are still quite unknown company, gotta push hard.
Sometimes when a game is too ambitious it tends to overcomplicate things to such an extent. Keep it smart and simple yet innovative to game mechanics story and gameplay
 
Sometimes when a game is too ambitious it tends to overcomplicate things to such an extent. Keep it smart and simple yet innovative to game mechanics story and gameplay

Game might suffer if company is too ambitious but the company gets a lot more respect if its. I have seen many companies who have worked over 10 year and still are under the radar for most gamers, even thought I have seen ambitious devs going broke too.
 
You don't really have to worry about cancellation here. And CDPR has very good quest design team, that has been getting better and better with each game: trust me, when it comes to quests, this game will have plenty of great content.
My biggest concerns are technical performance ( to deliver what we saw in the demo, it would have to be extremely well optimized), Itemization/leveling/balancing ( CDPR had..issues with these in the past) and overall consistency when it comes to dialogue/npc tone across the whole narrative.
 
Duke Nukem Forever and no man's sky had a very simple problem and that was too much ambition which leaded the game to become crap. "Cd projekt red" is known for its witcher game which are amazing but Cyberpunk 2077 feel like a totally new thing that they are trying and that scares me.

Don't get me wrong I saw the message that was on top saying: "work in progress - does not represent the final look of the game" .When game developers make a game that seem very ambitious 2 thing could happen
1. Turns out that it's shit
2. It gets cancelled

Let's talk about the number one:
The game showed us that their will be plenty of AI, plenty of guns, and a goddam sexy car that we will be able to drive. That doesn't scare me because that was done before. But I feel that world will be like the Batman games (not the Batman Arkham asylum's) big but not enough stuff to do. Also the fps rate, in the gameplay CD projekt red said :"their will be no loading screen" but their is so much shit happening how are you guys going to be able to have a stable 60 fps with that many AI, and a huge map?!! (All of this are not what scares me to the most, it the number 2)

And now number two:
Prey 2, not the one we had this year but the one that was cancelled at 5% from its end. I would really hate to see that game being cancelled, I do not care if you guys delay the game a hundred of times *cough*the division*cough*. I, like all your other fans want to hold a copy of the game in our hands but that can't happen if the game gets cancelled. And Cyberpunk 2077 feel like it is one of those projects that will not see the light.


For my conclusion
The game looks fantastic and all that I am asking is that you guys don't become Activision with their sexy gameplay and trailer but with the game only ending looking like shit. And also that you guys don't cancel the game.

Cordially
Gabritronic

Also please add cyberdogs.
Well my good friend (stranger), go hide under a carpet, or in a bomb shelter, we will call you when and if the world hasn't exploded and get you to play test it, if your not too scared to do so. How does that sound?

And no, Duke Nukem and No Man Sky were far from ambitious, merely good marketing (lies).
 
CDPR had issues working on CP77 as well as some inner personnel problem (they lost Lead Level Designer, Senior Gameplay Producer, Project Manager and Senior Art Producer, and these are only the most notable roles). In fact, some people who were supposed to work on CP77 never really worked on it and concepts of how the game was supposed to work were changed several times.

I wouldn't be surprised if these issues made them completely re-orient their approach to how they want to make the game and the real work on it started somewhere around 2017, with a completely different concept, which would explain the lack of roles - and other things - that were promised back at Summer Conference in 2012.
Or the shit was just impossible to do, which is pretty much the truth tbh
 
It doesn't seem too ambitious. It's not offering us a vast universe to explore, and it seems to add few "new" mechanics then might exist in other open-world games. It looks like a pretty solid game so far, and they don't seem to have made any huge promises that seem like they'd be unlikely to deliver. The storyline/environment seems most of the sell here, backed up by mechanics that have been solidly established in other games.

Duke Nukem Forever suffered partially from being a man out of his time, and being in development hell for a decade plus. It was basically a mess and suffered from having gone through tons of iterations, and it ironically seemed in need of more time and polish. It also wasn't a really ambitious game, really not trying to offer anything except some nostalgia and stuff to shoot.

No Man's Sky was supposed to be ambitious, because the developers basically promised the moon to hike up sales. They didn't deliver, obviously. They did do some cool things, like develop a setting where there was a massive explorable universe. However, it was basically a glorified tech demo on launch.

I would say that you might be conflating hype with ambition. There's a good amount of hype surrounding the game, but the developers been pretty careful about not creating an extremely ambitious game. They are doing a good job managing expectations and not promising too much aside from a good game in a cool setting.

Oh, and boob physics.
 
I would say that you might be conflating hype with ambition. There's a good amount of hype surrounding the game, but the developers been pretty careful about not creating an extremely ambitious game. They are doing a good job managing expectations and not promising too much aside from a good game in a cool setting.

Oh, and boob physics.

CD Red Projekt is ambitious, I personally think its quite clear, theres dozens of devs who have been in the industry 10+ year and accomplished nothing with their lazy butts, but CD Red Projekt is making good progress, especially the jump from Witcher 2 to Witcher 3 was massive. But how they play their cards in the future we will see I suppose. Jump from Witcher 1 to Witcher 2 wasnt bad either.
 
I look at it this way. An indie developer decided to create a game based on a series of novels steeped in Polish folklore, and it was going to be a mature experience unlike most games on the market. There was a little interest surrounding it...and lots of, "Yeah, we'll see," sentiment. Sounds ambitious; maybe a little too zealous. We received The Witcher. And gamers were like: "Wow."

Then, CDPR announced that they were going to do a sequel with unprecedented cinematic quality. Fully-acted, in-engine cutscenes with a branching storyline and multiple outcomes. The press around it was largely like, "Yeah, we'll see," again. Sounds too ambitious, unrealistic, etc. We received The Witcher 2: Assassin of Kings. And gamers were like: "Wow!"

Later, CDPR introduced the next title, which was going to be a fully open-world game with even more amazing cinematics, which was in no way going to be a GTA clone, and it was going to offer even more meaningful role-playing. The interest was pronounced this time, but much of the press was still like, "Yeah, we'll see." Ambition, too much hype, etc. We received The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt. And gamers were like: *Most awarded game of all time!*

Now, CDPR has announced that they're building a game based on Cyberpunk 2020. It will be a first-person game that will create Night City as an amazing, seamless environment and offer an engrossing role-playing experience from top to bottom. And the press is saying, "Yeah, we'll see." Sounds awfully ambitious.

I like patterns.
 
Top Bottom