Today after a month, Cyberpunk completed same % of players as Witcher 3 after 5.5 years

+
but it isnt...at last thats my opinion
you can even run around naked, if you play a netrunner/ghost build
a loot shooter is depending on getting better loot the longer you play it...

but its like the post of if its an rpg.. we could argue for months
You are saying that this is not a looter-shooter because while we can loot for days (and generally have to if we want the "best" items) and we shoot a whole lot, the game balance is actually so bad that we don't really need those items anyway, and looter-shooters are always balanced so finely that you must loot or die?

That is not a bad argument, but I would argue that it is perhaps not entirely true. In Borderlands 2, a game that is undeniably a looter-shooter, you did not need to keep looting until your ran into higher level enemies. Then your items would quickly be underleveled and you would need better stuff. The same effectively applies in this game, except it becomes really hard to run into higher level enemies once the player reaches level 35'ish or so. And also in Borderlands 2, it very quickly became routine to figure out at a glance what stuff one wanted to pick up, meaning a lot of the loot was simply lef

In other words, I would say that the game is still a looter-shooter, it just isn't balanced very well and therefore the looting eventually becomes pointless. And I want to stress that I actually prefer that, because just cleaning up every place and then doing inventory management is not really what I consider fun. I would much rather have less items in the world but have them be more meaningful.

And I would much rather be able to find a nice piece of equipment and then stick with it and maybe make it part of my character's identity, than having to dump a cool "legendary" item into the trunk of my car because it was found too early and it isn't feasible to upgrade it.

Post automatically merged:

That is a lie. Steam 9/10. MetaCritic 85 Media / User score: 8.1 Xbox, 8.0 PlayStation. PC User score is 7.3 which is rather curious considering Steam score 9/10.

For me, large part of it's charm was, that it doesn't overstay its welcome.

And what comes to Destiny and that stuff where people can waste their entire lives on, I really take Cyberpunk any day over meaningless grind whatever content, for the sake of content.
And then look at what people actually commented on the game. A lot of people were commenting how darn short it is. Some people got through it in 15-20 hours. Took me a bit longer, but then I went everywhere, did everything. It's a nice game for what it is, but it could really use a fair bit more depth to its hubs and some before and after changes, rather than those hubs just being dead shells once you've finished their quest content.

As for Destiny, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that an online MP game? Not entirely the same thing. MMO's also tend to be super-grindy "complete in half a decade" kind of things, and yeah, I don't like that either. But there's a difference between literally having a lot of ground to explore and find new stuff and see new things and then having super-grindy "beat this boss 5000 times to get that item, beat that boss 7000 times to get your next level" kinds of gameplay loops. Which is what the late game in MP games seems to be, in my limited experience.
 
Last edited:
I am personally one of those people who think that an AAA RPG game should have a minimum of 40 something hours worth of main campaign. Anything less just feel rushed and not worth $60 imo.

One of the examples you brought up was Tomb Raider. I used to be a diehard fanboy of the Tomb Raider series up until the last 3 entry. The game just became lame with the "new" Lara Croft. And the story lenght reflects that, especially since imo Tomb Raider should have never been about an "open world experience".... Anyways.. of topic...

I don't understand the idea that less is better. It's a single player RPG game, you can literally play it on your own pace. There is no rush to endgame, there is no need to cut story when you can literally take all the time in the world to complete it. The story and game won't go anywhere, it's not time exclusive...


Well said, friend, well said.
 
And then look at what people actually commented on the game. A lot of people were commenting how darn short it is. Some people got through it in 15-20 hours.
People say lot of things, they liked it however, it was not trashed and I'm not going to make this Outer Worlds topic.

Where I live, Cyberpunk 2077 2-disc blu-ray was about € 40, I spent 170 hours in that world not including time I spent to see two alternative endings. What's that then, 23 cents for hour or something. If I were bought it, I'd say that's a steal for quality I got.
 
yep.. 42€ for the GOG key.. thats "cheap"
for a singleplaygame which i did play more then 200hours and still playing... its super cheap
I have thousands of hours in Total Warhammer 1 and 2, total price maybe 220-240 euros. That is pretty good. I have thousands of hours in Morrowind, which cost what, 60 + two expansions at 10-15 each? That is super cheap. Pretty similar with Skyrim, I suspect.

If you want to do a fair comparison then you have to compare against actual substitutes. It does not really make sense to argue that a 50 euro BicMac is cheap, just because Michelin star restaurants cost a lot more.

And the GOG key was 60 euro for the standard edition in my part of the world. It isn't terrible if you can get a few hundred hours out of it, but if you're just getting 20-30 hours for the main quest and minimal side missions then it's really not a good proposition.
 
I'll answer to my question before mod will lock this thread.

Steam telling me 198hrs in the game, so for me it was long enough, I have done 2x 100% playthrough and dozens hours of exploring the map to find not accessible areas, legendary guns etc (I posted more about map here). So for me this game was worth every single eddie, I don't care about 60€ for 21hrs main story game, If story and game mechanics are good I'm absolutely fine with it. For example like World of Warcraft for me with over 20 000hrs played and I paid more than 2000€.

I'm not surprised how discussion moving to other direction just because I posted stats about how many people already completed this game. Sadly I knew people will go offtopic instead of just telling if length is ok, if they expecting same length story DLC's like Heart of Stone or Blood and Wine, or just they expected longer base main story etc. Just normal conversation, not whining about bugs, broken promises or lies, because it's in every other topic here on CDPR forum. It's not even fun to read it anymore.

I just pointed on fact that Cyberpunk 2077 already finished same % of players as Witcher 3 in 5.5 years and asked you if you are fine with main story length or not. That's all. This post isn't about player count, but I couldn't help myself and I had to point on these stupid articles which gaming magazines releasing every day just for views.
 
So today after 34 days 26.5% of players completed Cyberpunk 2077, it's same number as Witcher 3, after 5.5 years. For me this is good news, Witcher 3 was really long for some people, so I'm not surprised only 1/4 of all players completed whole main story. Story length data are from HowLongToBeat.com, so it's average, some of you maybe completed those games way faster. It's ok, not everyone is good at playing videogames or rushing main story.

The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt - Achievement Passed the Trial (51hrs main story length)
Cyberpunk 2077 - Achievement The World (21hrs main story length)

If you want to compare it to other big games..
Horizon Zero Dawn - Achievement Ended the war machine threat (22hrs main story length)
Shadow of the Tomb Raider - Achievement Quite the Adventure (12hrs main story length)
Red Dead Redemption 2 - Achievement Redemption (48hrs main story length)
DOOM Eternal - Achievement The Once and Future Slayer (15hrs main story length)
Assassin's Creed Odyssey - Achievement Odyssey's End (42hrs main story length)

CDPR "warned" us about shorter main story, are you ok with 21hrs or you wanted little bit more? Also those articles on the internet about "Cyberpunk 2077 is losing players very fast" etc are now explained, I guess. :)

They could have made the game 2 hours long if the metric of success is people completing the game. What difference does it make if people choose to complete the game or not?
 
Top Bottom