Why do many fans believe this game (in comparable aspects) will be inferior to GTA?

+
So, what are "compatable" aspects of CP77 and GTA
1. Driving
2. Gunplay
3. Open world city

All seem better in CP77 from the outside.

Driving = ? (Can only judge after first-hand experience, but as far as mouse+keyboard driving goes, GTA has this down pretty good)

Gunplay = CP2077 > GTA (This is an easy concession to make. GTA doesn't have all that great nor deep gunplay. RDR circumvents this with Deadeye)

Open world city = CP2077 > GTA (Again I am 100% sure of this. The detail shown is incredible, and your choices may have effects)

Is it rude to call people comparing two completly different games, created for completly different audiences "dumb"? :)
JJrude.gif
 
Last edited:
What is the most popular open world?
What is the open world with the biggest budget?
What is the most talked about open world?
What is the most polished open world?

Now what do GTAV and CP2077 have in common?
You do the math.

I really hate the word "Normie" but I think it explains most of the reddit beautifully. You should keep in mind that subreddits are often echo chambers. People will agree with what the majority agrees. Comparing these two games are simply easy at first glance. People who are not a die hard fan of the Cyberpunk genre see open world, sunny weather and cars and immediately connect it to R* and then they'll expect a well polished game.
 
People who are not a die hard fan of the Cyberpunk genre see open world, sunny weather and cars and immediately connect it to R* and then they'll expect a well polished game.
I get the distinct impression some think CP2077s "Open world" should (or they want it to) be the same as GTAs "Sandbox".
"Open world" is an entirely different thing then "Sabdbox".
 
You know what? I want to answer the topic question.
Why do people think that CP2077 will be 'better' than GTA5?

Because GTA5 is a 2013 game. It was released seven years ago. Seven.
 
You know what? I want to answer the topic question.
Why do people think that CP2077 will be 'better' than GTA5?

Because GTA5 is a 2013 game. It was released seven years ago. Seven.

Even if GTA6 were to release this year, I give the edge to Cyberpunk simply because it would be supported post launch with single player DLC. Something Rockstar with all its power, money and wisdom forgot how to do.
 
Last edited:
I wouldnt compare GTA and Cyberpunk. On the Release of GTA 5 some really sad things happened, people went totally nuts and it was understandable why, cause its a raealy great game. Rockstar is a very big player like EA but not that hated for milking the pockets that obvious. (Yeah Multiplayer is something else to talk about) But what i want to say is that CDPR tries something completely new in there carrier, and they showed us that they are working to please there comunity and work with them. When Rockstar releases something new and it becomes a tripple A it isn't a surprise and most games are very similar (yeah most are also totally awesome with great Story and believable World). I'm not hyped for GTA6, Watch Dogs Legion or AC Vallhalla, because i know they will be Great cause they are similar to what we have Seen before. But Cyberpunk has the Chance to become something entirely new.
 
Yeah it's not that just narrative focus. It's that one is a narrative driven RPG, and the other is a action sandbox. I would quibble that GTAV seems to be more primarily focused on the sandbox elements than the narrative, but I think reasonable minds can differ there.

One has a branching narrative quest design and dialogue structure. That's a huge difference in design that impacts many other designs. The milieu and tones of the worlds are likely to also be very different.

Yes you can compare how well the level design (& maps), combat mechanics and driving (which seems to be the three places where I think most comparisons will be), but if your focused mostly on just that stuff, your missing what I think is the main focus of CDPRs game. It's fine to compare, but keeping what the games are aiming to be in context is important. Because it informs where finite resources and time are spent.

That's why I've been saying for years that it's best to think of the game as TW3 narrative and quest deisgn, meets Deus Ex HR setting, meets GTA open world design, with some other things picked up from other places too.

Alright, yes I agree with you that the story will be very different with the branching storylines of Cyberpunk. We're not sure how much of a focus Cyberpunk will have on the narrative, but I'm assuming that the rest of the city and the random side-quests will be as detailed as the parts of the city that lie within the main storyline (I think that is CDPR's stated goal, but I could be wrong here). So even though Cyberpunk will have a more complex story that takes time and effort away from refining the open world part of the game, I don't think that downplays the importance of an open-world Night City. It shouldn't be taboo to compare them just because fans are scared that it won't live up to Rockstar's standards. This is not directed at you, but saying that we shouldn't compare the open world aspect of GTAV and Cyberpunk is just silly to me. It's not an unfair comparison like if we tried to compare an open world to something different like a linear world in TLOU2.
 
but saying that we shouldn't compare the open world aspect of GTAV and Cyberpunk is just silly to me.
I didn't say they shouldn't be compared. I said we should remember the context of what each game is trying to do when comparing.
 
I didn't say they shouldn't be compared. I said we should remember the context of what each game is trying to do when comparing.

That statement wasn't directed at anything you said, rather the post above the one you quoted and some others.

The context for both games is to create an immersive world and in GTA's case, it is also to create a playground for messing around in a simulated world. Even if Cyberpunk isn't trying to accomplish the latter, we can still compare and say something like X is a better open world game than Y. It doesn't necessarily mean that X is a better game in general than Y, but just that the open world aspect is better. You could say that game Y isn't trying to be the best open world game and Y has a much better story than X and is a better game overall, and that's fine, but it's still valid to say that X has a better open world. Even though the context may be different, the context doesn't really matter when we extract the open world from the game and it is still a good comparison.
 
The context for both games is to create an immersive world and in GTA's case, it is also to create a playground for messing around in a simulated world. Even if Cyberpunk isn't trying to accomplish the latter, we can still compare and say something like X is a better open world game than Y.

Sure you can, but 'better' would be a subjective, relative term to use in a comparison which falls apart rather quickly when applied to different aspects of two games which belong to different genres. Take combat for example: Some say GTA's pin-point accuracy while shooting and driving and general straighforwardness to it makes it the best they've played. Others will most likely enjoy the more granular shooting mechanics and combat in Cp2077. They're both made to be fun for their players, they're both someone's "best", but it dosen't really tell you anything about either of them nor would one's combat work for the other and viceversa. Hence why these game X that belongs to genre Y does Z better than game W that belongs to genre T comparisons are, in my humble opinion pointless, simply because elements comprising said feature (Z) could very well be genre-design defined, making the binary "this is better this is worse" comparison unfair and highly debatable as features rarely exist in a vacuum.
 
Last edited:
Sure you can, but 'better' would be a subjective, relative term to use in a comparison which falls apart rather quickly when applied to different aspects of two games which belong to different genres. Take combat for example: Some say GTA's pin-point accuracy while shooting and driving and general straighforwardness to it makes it the best they've played. Others will most likely enjoy the more granular shooting mechanics and combat in Cp2077. They're both made to be fun for their players, they're both someone's "best", but it dosen't really tell you anything about either of them nor would one's combat work for the other and viceversa. Hence why these game X that belongs to genre Y does Z better than game W that belongs to genre T comparisons are, in my humble opinion pointless, simply because elements comprising said feature (Z) could very well be genre-design defined, making the binary "this is better this is worse" comparison unfair and highly debatable as features rarely exist in a vacuum.

I don't know if I agree that the open worlds of Cyberpunk and GTAV will be so different that comparisons between them are pointless. I know technically the games are in two different genres, but my opinion is that they share the exact same base, which is the open world city, with a very similar set of things you can do in the open world. The difference in genre are downstream from this, in my opinion.

We are getting into the inherent subjectively of ratings and opinions now, and I think I shouldn't go too deep before the discussion becomes too semantic and abstract...

Anyway, I agree that comparisons start to break down between two very different things. However, I think that in this case, we are comparing two very similar things if we abstract away the city of GTAV and Cyberpunk from the combat systems, RPG systems, etc... I guess this is our difference in opinion, that the open world can be thought of as separate from the other systems of the game. My opinion is that I can compare how good my experience is doing things like walking around looking at buildings and people in Night City, carjacking a random vehicle, and evading the police, to doing the same thing in Los Santos. I get that the systems and features around this experience are slightly different, but that's not enough to say that the comparison is unfair in my opinion.
 
My opinion is that I can compare how good my experience is doing things like walking around looking at buildings and people in Night City, carjacking a random vehicle, and evading the police, to doing the same thing in Los Santos.

I agree with you in so far as we can compare the cities but I wouldn't go so far as to say we can compare things like evading the police. When we do that, we're straying into gameplay territory and both games are trying to do different things. At least I suspect so. I think, though I might be mistaken, that's what Sild was getting at. The more gameplay is involved in the comparison, the less relevant it becomes, imho. The games really are that different from what I can tell. At least I hope they are.

I don't think massive cop evasions are something they're trying to implement in the same way as GTA's sandbox 'go grab a tank or jump in a helicopter and cause mayhem', if that's what you were getting at. You might not be. I don't see the game they're making catering to often having the law chasing you down as you hijack one car after another as the police continually try to take you down and blow you to bits. I'm expecting a more Deus Ex kind of feel.

I feel more comfortable keeping comparisons to the city itself in terms of looks, atmosphere and attention to detail. As you mentioned - the experience and 'wow' factor of exploration, both on foot and by vehicle.
 
I agree with you in so far as we can compare the cities but I wouldn't go so far as to say we can compare things like evading the police. When we do that, we're straying into gameplay territory and both games are trying to do different things. At least I suspect so. I think, though I might be mistaken, that's what Sild was getting at. The more gameplay is involved in the comparison, the less relevant it becomes, imho. The games really are that different from what I can tell. At least I hope they are.

I don't think massive cop evasions are something they're trying to implement in the same way as GTA's sandbox 'go grab a tank or jump in a helicopter and cause mayhem', if that's what you were getting at. You might not be. I don't see the game they're making catering to often having the law chasing you down as you hijack one car after another as the police continually try to take you down and blow you to bits. I'm expecting a more Deus Ex kind of feel.

Pretty much, yeah.

I wasn't saying the open worlds in both games are incomparable, that would be a bit unreasonable, but the deeper you go the more you run into conflicting design philosophies and everything that entails. And that just makes them different not worse or better, objectively speaking.

I feel more comfortable keeping comparisons to the city itself in terms of looks, atmosphere and attention to detail. As you mentioned - the experience and 'wow' factor of exploration, both on foot and by vehicle.

Also agreed. Attention to detail like NPC variety, abundance, or graphics and sounds are pretty much a focus for both games for immersion purposes so yes, i'd say it's a perfectly valid comparison from those angles.
 
Yea evading the police wasn't the best example of the point I was trying to make. I think I recall one of the developers saying that the reaction by NCPD will be different depending on which district you get caught committing a crime in, so this is already quite different from how it's done in GTAV. The other things that you all mentioned are more easily comparable.
 
That statement wasn't directed at anything you said, rather the post above the one you quoted and some others.

The context for both games is to create an immersive world and in GTA's case, it is also to create a playground for messing around in a simulated world. Even if Cyberpunk isn't trying to accomplish the latter, we can still compare and say something like X is a better open world game than Y. It doesn't necessarily mean that X is a better game in general than Y, but just that the open world aspect is better. You could say that game Y isn't trying to be the best open world game and Y has a much better story than X and is a better game overall, and that's fine, but it's still valid to say that X has a better open world. Even though the context may be different, the context doesn't really matter when we extract the open world from the game and it is still a good comparison.

I agree with this. There ARE aspects that we can compare such as:

1) Dynamic weather
2) Dynamic NPC encounters/missions
3) City ambiance
4) City density
5) Quality/Quantity of interiors
 
To be honest not GTA but RDR2 managed to create a living breathing dynamic open world. I won't compare necessarily the two games but i can understand why someone could make this comment. To be frank the marketing of this game seems to focus too much to appeal a fanbase ((mainly the FPS one)) while on the other hand we have completely lack of marketing regarding RPG fans wich is.. well unsurprising.

However i do believe cd projekt red is very talented when it comes to story telling. However there are concerns on open world mechanics because let's face it as beautiful The witcher 3 was the open world was merely a Scenery while outside quests nothing interesting happened Gta in the other hand has a living open world and while is not refined like RDR2 offer the player a sense of sandboxing and dynamism that in open world game is a must.

Now again it is possible that Cd projekt red improved the open world formula since Witcher 3 i am kinda sure of it. But again the marketing seems to focus in Guns and mainly Action shooter mechanics.

They are doing that to draw in a crowd that is not interested on rpg hoping they will still love the game and they will get sucked in?.. Possible but this is just mere speculation.

What is important is if you take in exam Cd projekt red Witcher 3 and Gta V the open world is vastly different. One is Dynamic and living and the other is just a fancy scenery so in the end i see where this comparsion is coming from.
 
However there are concerns on open world mechanics because let's face it as beautiful The witcher 3 was the open world was merely a Scenery while outside quests nothing interesting happened Gta in the other hand has a living open world.

One is Dynamic and living and the other is just a fancy scenery so in the end i see where this comparsion is coming from.

I'm not sure how to interpret this. I found the open-world of W3 to be great.

Living, breathing villages and cities with folks going about their business. People to talk to and sidequests to be taken, sometimes a little moral dilemma. Some of the little tales people had to tell you when questing were interesting, sometimes grim, sometimes funny. There were lairs to discover, bandit camps to be cleared. You could explore and stumble into a creature way more powerful than you. Pubs to visit and Gwent to be played and cards to be collected. Gossip to be overheard. What was lacking for you compared to GTA?

I enjoyed GTAV but what exactly do you mean by W3 being 'just scenery' and GTA being dynamic? If anything, I felt GTA was the more superficial of the two. You could enter very few buildings. You could get sidequests but they weren't anything particularly amazing compared to W3. A guy wants you to photograph someone, a guy gets you high, someone challenges you to a bicycle race. It's all done for the sake of messing about and putting their humour to use and is fun and all but what exactly makes it more 'dynamic' or superior? Apart from when you take into account individual tastes of course. There's no progression, no loot, no choice. These two games (W3 and GTA) are offering different things in their open-world and I suspect CP will feel far more like W3 or Deus Ex.

If you mean sandbox elements like spontaneously deciding you want to parachute off a building or try to land a helicopter in a swimming pool or launch a speedboat through a Ferris wheel then yeah, W3 didn't have that kind of thing and I doubt CP will either. It's an assumption but I think those hoping for that sort of stuff will be disappointed. I'm certainly not one of them.

Again, I'd say we can compare the open-world cities from a technical perspective but that's about it and, even then, we can't do that until we get our grubby little mitts on the damn thing ;)
 
I enjoyed GTAV but what exactly do you mean by W3 being 'just scenery' and GTA being dynamic? If anything, I felt GTA was the more superficial of the two.

Witcher 3 doesn't even allow you to kill townspeople. Much of the environment is less dynamic than GTAV in that street lamps, signs, etc.. are static and not destructible. In GTAV, police and random civilians will attack or flee based on your actions. Fire trucks will show up if you report a fire. These things really affect the degrees of freedom the player has and makes the cities feel more immersive and less like a painting.

I am optimistic that Cyberpunk will feel more dynamic than the Witcher 3 because the devs mentioned that the environment is highly destructible, and that the police would respond to you killing random people in the street. I don't know how many sandbox elements like this will exist, but I'd be very surprised if it is less interactive than the Witcher 3. I don't expect it to be quite as dynamic as RDR2 or GTAV though, because of the focus and time spent on the branching storyline and RPG elements.
 
Witcher 3 doesn't even allow you to kill townspeople. Much of the environment is less dynamic than GTAV in that street lamps, signs, etc.. are static and not destructible. In GTAV, police and random civilians will attack or flee based on your actions. Fire trucks will show up if you report a fire. These things really affect the degrees of freedom the player has and makes the cities feel more immersive and less like a painting.

Ah, I see. Sandbox elements are your thing, eh? Didn't townsfolk in W3 freak out when you start being naughty and guards attack you? It's a minor point anyway because you're right, W3 wasn't a sandbox. Allowing Geralt to Aard signposts or hack up benches with his sword, or slaughtering townsfolk must have been something they felt wasn't worth the time or too out of character for the setting, for various reasons.

Anyway, whether it's there or not, most of that stuff doesn't matter to me in CP or pretty much any game. The person I responded to said, 'outside of quests nothing interesting happened'. But the quests are what happens. Those are the interesting bits. What happens in GTA for example, when you're not doing missions? Random chaos that you instigate yourself? That's all well and good but I stopped caring about that after Vice City. But that's just me.

Back to CP though. I'm with you on the the destructible environments they've mentioned - it's a modern setting with guns and high-tech weaponry after all - especially since it'll go hand in hand with actual weapon functionality.

Again, I'm not sure what people are expecting from this game by comparing it to GTA in terms of open-world oriented gameplay. It's not a sandbox as far as I can tell. So I'd even imagine there'll be times when you're restricted from getting your gun out entirely or simply unable to pull the trigger.....but I have faith we'll get so much more in general than GTA provides, despite whatever some might feel is lost from not having the chaotic freedom to do crazy stuff.
 
Ah, I see. Sandbox elements are your thing, eh? Didn't townsfolk in W3 freak out when you start being naughty and guards attack you? It's a minor point anyway because you're right, W3 wasn't a sandbox. Allowing Geralt to Aard signposts or hack up benches with his sword, or slaughtering townsfolk must have been something they felt wasn't worth the time or too out of character for the setting, for various reasons.

Yea I like having some sandbox elements because it makes the immersion that much deeper. Maybe I gave you the wrong impression that all I do is go on murderous rampages through open world cities for fun, but that's not the case. I'll occasionally mess around, but I don't spend hours doing it. Yes, townsfolk in W3 do react to the player and guards attack, and that part is done well imo.

I think all of those tiny things like allowing signposts or benches to be hacked up are not important, but all of those details together really help create a more immersive experience. For example, I didn't play Half-Life Alyx, but I saw some gameplay clips. There are so many utterly meaningless assets in that game that they made dynamic and affected by physics. Are these important to the actual story? No. But I think people really like that game because it feels like the environment is more real than if the everything were just static. In any environment, I think sandbox elements like this are better than not having them, whether it be open world or linear like HL Alyx, but that's just my opinion. I think most games are trending in this direction anyway. This is something that is inevitable as games get more and more realistic.
 
Top Bottom