The justification is 'quality' ... (something that is missing a lot for secondary quests). But the reason, as I see it, is 'play fast, wait and buy DLCs'. The logic is that of the market, not that of offering entertainment.
I'm reaching 200 hours 'in game'. Like? Using my own imagination despite the decision errors of the game's directors (directors).
But it is possible to change ... if CDPR wants to.
I'm at a stage I cannot progress, have around 200 hours gameplay with only 45% complete due to a bug that doesn't let me progress.
Every mission is complete though I keep coming back, there's shards to loot and read about the most various things (I keep remind my self to read and keep every shard that might turn useful on a future quest), there's dead ppl laying around every other alley you can loot from, there's computers, vending machines and antennas to hack and get eddies and experience from, the odd 5 thugs assaulting someone you can beat their shit off then loot all the rubbish to then sell. The badlands is also a nice place to explore, you'll might find the odd abandoned caravan and loot from and find a bunch of ppl raving to the tunes from a car in the middle of nowhere.
In the city I like also to go climbing buildings and train my parkour skills as also look for the best viewpoints
It's a much slower format, but I manage to keep myself entertained and enjoy the experience more as an actual local/resident while I wait for a call for a new job.
It might sound weird, but tbh I feel more part of the town each play, you go to one of the bars where ppl know you, call you by V and you definitely feel more and more in line with the character.
To a degree, I think it was a good thing this bug in my installation, or i'd have finished the game and wouldn't have gone so deep with the experience.
"Cleared" game in 55hrs, without every possible missions but a lot of them. Feel no wish to play again even too try new "playstyles", while have 550hrs in TW3. Meh.
I don't have anything against "dark" endings tbh, but i don't get why you need to do 6 or 7 "different" endings while they are the same, just different environment around.
See you should complete it once. Just once. There's no real replayablility to the game, but for what it is, it's not bad. Not great but not bad.
I've been thinking about the issues with this game, a lot, and I've come to a conclusion.
The game was great if released 10 years ago, or released today by EA or Bethesda.
But a modern day game, released by a company that has as much potential as CDPR, that has the features of a ten year old game, just isn't going to cut it in todays market. I mean we expect crap from EA and Bethesda, but not from CDPR.
Unfortunately we just need to come to terms with it. CDPR's business model is now Bethesda and EA. Release a crap game, but with potential. Release a few teaser DLCs to wet the fan bases appetite. Then release expansions that cost as much as the game cost to buy, that slowly slides the game to where the fan base wants it to be. So after a few paid expansions where we're doubled and tripled what we paid for originally, we'll get somewhere close to the game we want.
Then release a final DLC that opens up the game to modders, toute this as "listening to our fan base", and ignore the game, until you can figure out a way to monetize mods, then try and shut down the free modder community and bring mods in house.
Then release the next crap game (probably an online multiplayer) in the vein of Fallout 76, and waste a bunch of resources trying to get it to work properly, all while selling keys for loot boxes, and character customization items for 10 bucks a pop.
Iskas just play the game and pay attention to what V says and what those closest to you say, the path is laid out, bar a few tweaks, it honestly is not that bad a end and is open enough to expand or RP a great life for your char.
It all depends how your playing though so i'll give you a brief scenario.
Are you romancing Judy? Yes? Listen to what she wants
Friends or Romancing Panam? Again listen to what she says and offers
Talk to Vik? Listen to what he says
Talk to misty? Listen to what she says
Jackie? Listen
LISTEN to those who are closest to you, the game does everything bar hit you over the head about how to approach things.
Does it lack true RP? Yes
Do your choices ultimately matter? Not really
But theres a good story there, if somewhat linear, great characters amazingly voiced, if somewhat underdeveloped and a brilliant city to explore, you've put 200h in already so you've been enjoying your time, dont let the depressing negative joes here rob you of that
Iskas just play the game and pay attention to what V says and what those closest to you say, the path is laid out, bar a few tweaks, it honestly is not that bad a end and is open enough to expand or RP a great life for your char.
It all depends how your playing though so i'll give you a brief scenario.
Are you romancing Judy? Yes? Listen to what she wants
Friends or Romancing Panam? Again listen to what she says and offers
Talk to Vik? Listen to what he says
Talk to misty? Listen to what she says
Jackie? Listen
LISTEN to those who are closest to you, the game does everything bar hit you over the head about how to approach things.
Does it lack true RP? Yes
Do your choices ultimately matter? Not really
But theres a good story there, if somewhat linear, great characters amazingly voiced, if somewhat underdeveloped and a brilliant city to explore, you've put 200h in already so you've been enjoying your time, dont let the depressing negative joes here rob you of that
It was a design decision supported by the market and not history or any history, let alone the satisfaction of players. A decision that condemned Cyberpunk to the terrible criticisms it receives today and they are not restricted to technical problems (also a result of that same decision).
Technical problems only highlighted this (market) decision. What we see is the attempt to do something great, but which came up against 'market bureaucratic' decisions.
I have the greatest sympathy for developers, they are the ones who make games, but I have no sympathy for those who idealized the game, ruined it from 2018 until now, out of the greed of executives.
Ahh just had that discussion with a friend, he refuses to accept it, well I'd say there's 3 finals, but honestly it's like Final 1 side A/B then Final 2 side A/B again and then the last final which honestly felt to me like the most logical since this isn't V's story actually, it's the continuation of 2020's Alt and Johnny's story in Night City, plus that ending right smack at the end definitely makes you feel more stuff is coming, not that the other endings don't tho'
Also, @IskrasFemme , wrap the game up you'll be glad you did, I'm 260+ hours (ok, honestly 240+ because I left the game one day running on background while I was doing other stuff) in and can say that it kind of deserves to be finished once or twice just for the fact of seeing what the characters say when you select different conversational options on the endings (pretty funny to flip the finger to arasaka as johnny in one of them fi you have the coolness needed), having said that I fully agree with you in almost every other aspect lol
The story involves immersion, something that there is little in Cyberpunk due to the decision of game directors (Quest Design, in particular). The absence of dialogue outside the constant stupidity of NPCs is proof of this.
It is not merely a technical limitation, it is a mediocre decision to make the player just follow, in a straight line, a story that I think is bad, although it has potential (but it is pruned precisely by the fast food marketing logic). Why is she bad? Because it breaks the backbone of the game: immersion. The story was conditioned to 'quit the game' or 'play fast, you have a few weeks'. Ridiculous, it is praise for this script decision. Relationships with NPCs are cold, regarding the technique and idealization of dialogues, everyone hates you in the game, even those who provide you with a service. 'I think they even copied GTA 1 scripts ... or 2 ...' - not by chance the community says that and rightly so. There is no interaction, no desire by the game director to promote this. As I said above, I think the directors are not gamers and they seem to hate games.
There is no way to even think about (technical) lighting without thinking about a script. In colors, without thinking of a script (Cyberpunk, in my view, except for some periods of rain, it looks like Disneyland).
As I said, they did everything to make players, in a huge city, stay out of the game more than in game. I suppose it is by market decision, merely ... there is no other plausible or rational explanation for this.
I'm in game - and for 200 hours - willingly, the game certainly has qualities, but they are suffocated by bureaucratic and bureaucratic decisions, because I use what I have in mind: imagination. But I'm poor, I can't buy a thousand games to distract myself ...
Post automatically merged:
In game, if we say 'good morning, how are you', everyone, absolutely all NPCs will say something offensive in response, whether in the first or second line of dialogue. That and decision. This is the greatest example that, interaction, was burned by the decisions of bureaucrats!
Post automatically merged:
My dream was to make games, but I can't afford it, I'm poor and I'm just one. I study game engine and modeling long after a certain age, because I was always creative and I want, next year, to be able to work with it, outwitting my miserable i5. But I will try anyway. We survive, don't we? CDPR had everything in hand, everything. Whoever has everything in their hands, threw it all away for selfish decisions. But is it, money, just money, every time, money ... When this industry thinks about people, everything will change for them.
I think that's why I like Studios Ghibli. They dare, they revolutionize ... even in a world that doesn't make 200 billion a year (Microsoft report).
The story involves immersion, something that there is little in Cyberpunk due to the decision of game directors (Quest Design, in particular). The absence of dialogue outside the constant stupidity of NPCs is proof of this.
It is not merely a technical limitation, it is a mediocre decision to make the player just follow, in a straight line, a story that I think is bad, although it has potential (but it is pruned precisely by the fast food marketing logic). Why is she bad? Because it breaks the backbone of the game: immersion. The story was conditioned to 'quit the game' or 'play fast, you have a few weeks'. Ridiculous, it is praise for this script decision. Relationships with NPCs are cold, regarding the technique and idealization of dialogues, everyone hates you in the game, even those who provide you with a service. 'I think they even copied GTA 1 scripts ... or 2 ...' - not by chance the community says that and rightly so. There is no interaction, no desire by the game director to promote this. As I said above, I think the directors are not gamers and they seem to hate games.
There is no way to even think about (technical) lighting without thinking about a script. In colors, without thinking of a script (Cyberpunk, in my view, except for some periods of rain, it looks like Disneyland).
As I said, they did everything to make players, in a huge city, stay out of the game more than in game. I suppose it is by market decision, merely ... there is no other plausible or rational explanation for this.
I'm in game - and for 200 hours - willingly, the game certainly has qualities, but they are suffocated by bureaucratic and bureaucratic decisions, because I use what I have in mind: imagination. But I'm poor, I can't buy a thousand games to distract myself ...
Post automatically merged:
In game, if we say 'good morning, how are you', everyone, absolutely all NPCs will say something offensive in response, whether in the first or second line of dialogue. That and decision. This is the greatest example that, interaction, was burned by the decisions of bureaucrats!
Post automatically merged:
My dream was to make games, but I can't afford it, I'm poor and I'm just one. I study game engine and modeling long after a certain age, because I was always creative and I want, next year, to be able to work with it, outwitting my miserable i5. But I will try anyway. We survive, don't we? CDPR had everything in hand, everything. Whoever has everything in their hands, threw it all away for selfish decisions. But is it, money, just money, every time, money ... When this industry thinks about people, everything will change for them.
I think that's why I like Studios Ghibli. They dare, they revolutionize ... even in a world that doesn't make 200 billion a year (Microsoft report).
'Atta choom! Keep that dream up and going! Bet you'll make a great one if you keep at it, more so in this time in which Indies are making great stuff, it'll be tough as hell sure but likely worth it.
Not sure if it was bureaucracy, the company shifting for a money scheme, the devs, the QA team not doing their job or not defending their grounds or whatever it was but yeah, the game was definitely F over.
Which is also another pain of this day and age, almost every game comes out the same way, a buggy messy hell with passable mechanics and then they start getting patches, fixes and so on to end up in an acceptable status, bugthesda and bugisoft are prime examples, EA went past beyond them already and is more of a game developer shredder (anyone remembers maxis? what bioware used to be? no? anyone? lol)
See you should complete it once. Just once. There's no real replayablility to the game, but for what it is, it's not bad. Not great but not bad.
I've been thinking about the issues with this game, a lot, and I've come to a conclusion.
The game was great if released 10 years ago, or released today by EA or Bethesda.
But a modern day game, released by a company that has as much potential as CDPR, that has the features of a ten year old game, just isn't going to cut it in todays market. I mean we expect crap from EA and Bethesda, but not from CDPR.
Unfortunately we just need to come to terms with it. CDPR's business model is now Bethesda and EA. Release a crap game, but with potential. Release a few teaser DLCs to wet the fan bases appetite. Then release expansions that cost as much as the game cost to buy, that slowly slides the game to where the fan base wants it to be. So after a few paid expansions where we're doubled and tripled what we paid for originally, we'll get somewhere close to the game we want.
Then release a final DLC that opens up the game to modders, toute this as "listening to our fan base", and ignore the game, until you can figure out a way to monetize mods, then try and shut down the free modder community and bring mods in house.
Then release the next crap game (probably an online multiplayer) in the vein of Fallout 76, and waste a bunch of resources trying to get it to work properly, all while selling keys for loot boxes, and character customization items for 10 bucks a pop.
'Atta choom! Keep that dream up and going! Bet you'll make a great one if you keep at it, more so in this time in which Indies are making great stuff, it'll be tough as hell sure but likely worth it.
Not sure if it was bureaucracy, the company shifting for a money scheme, the devs, the QA team not doing their job or not defending their grounds or whatever it was but yeah, the game was definitely F over.
Which is also another pain of this day and age, almost every game comes out the same way, a buggy messy hell with passable mechanics and then they start getting patches, fixes and so on to end up in an acceptable status, bugthesda and bugisoft are prime examples, EA went past beyond them already and is more of a game developer shredder (anyone remembers maxis? what bioware used to be? no? anyone? lol)
www.forbes.com
and yes, i have hope. Nothing less or more.