- Status
I think we've all seen the animations from both games and already have the answer. In particular for melee, picking items up (one of the 2 games doesn't even have the animation for that) and enemies being it by bullets.
Spoiler: one of two games probably costed twice the other.
Also, one game aimed to a full immersive experience with facts, the other claimed it and then designed the game in a way that if you pull the trigger stronger your shotgun deals more damage.
TL;DR, completely incomparable.
Both companies made primarily third person experiences prior to these two entries. One developed for both third person and first person (lots of extra work and time), while the other is only first person.
The two entries are completely different games and I don't expect CDPR to match or surpass their animations. I'm not gonna lie and say I won't be disappointed on some level though.
I'd rather they deliver this game and then hopefully develop another first person title in the future with improved animations and gameplay though.
> interactive open world
Depends on how you define it. If it's small scale interactivity (opening drawers, looking at things) then probably not unless CDPR really went ham in that department as well.
If it's larger scale stuff then yes. I've seen a list of paths and decisions you can make in the flathead mission and it's beyond anything I've seen in any other game. The amount of things you can find out to later use to your advantage, the sides you can pick, what you decide to do... it's surprisingly interactive and it has consequences.
Personally between interactivity at a micro level and something more macro I chose the latter. First option is great for immersion (which is why I'm hoping it's there), second option provides something more... tactile.
> attention to details
A lot of people that got to play the game said that the game has a lot of attention to detail.
> animations
What I've seen so far in 2077 looked fine. Some eyebrow raising moments like some of the melee stuff but apart from that animations looked pretty damn good, no complaints.
RDR2 has the advantage of using Euphoria (if it's still called that), a tech Rockstar has been using ever since GTA4 and it creates an amazing sense of weight to the movement and gun impacts. It looks really good. On the other hand that sense of weight can make controlling characters feels slugish as well (a common criticism to GTA4, GTA5 and RDR2).
I think people are setting themselves up for disappointment if they expect 2077 to be some kind of massive game changer.
Depends on how you define it. If it's small scale interactivity (opening drawers, looking at things) then probably not unless CDPR really went ham in that department as well.
If it's larger scale stuff then yes. I've seen a list of paths and decisions you can make in the flathead mission and it's beyond anything I've seen in any other game. The amount of things you can find out to later use to your advantage, the sides you can pick, what you decide to do... it's surprisingly interactive and it has consequences.
Personally between interactivity at a micro level and something more macro I chose the latter. First option is great for immersion (which is why I'm hoping it's there), second option provides something more... tactile.
> attention to details
A lot of people that got to play the game said that the game has a lot of attention to detail.
> animations
What I've seen so far in 2077 looked fine. Some eyebrow raising moments like some of the melee stuff but apart from that animations looked pretty damn good, no complaints.
RDR2 has the advantage of using Euphoria (if it's still called that), a tech Rockstar has been using ever since GTA4 and it creates an amazing sense of weight to the movement and gun impacts. It looks really good. On the other hand that sense of weight can make controlling characters feels slugish as well (a common criticism to GTA4, GTA5 and RDR2).
I think people are setting themselves up for disappointment if they expect 2077 to be some kind of massive game changer.
of course,because the interactive open world and attention to details including animations is the bad parts of the game,and that's why God of War beat RDR2 in many GOTY awards,even RDR2 has higher MC score.
I hope CP77 won't overdo it on the elaborate detail and animations. Some of the animations in RDR2 really slowed the game down and eventually started to drag.
Instead, I hope CP77 will surpass RDR2 as a game that's fun to play, instead of just having more laborious animation.
Instead, I hope CP77 will surpass RDR2 as a game that's fun to play, instead of just having more laborious animation.
Last edited:
Rockstar is good at making polished linear experience with an unparalled open world sandbox. Any feature their games have are done to really high quality but at the end of the day they are quite shallow. The combat of RDR2 has no depth and their mission structure doesn't help the already shallow combat either.
Truth to be told i haven't enjoyed any of the Rockstar's game after Max Payne 3 and the extremely linear albeit polished Open World Games of their have lost their charm on me. The only thing that always stand out to me are their sandbox environments so that's the only thing for me that would be really hard for Cyberpunk to overcome.
All of the other aspects i have seen of Cyberpunk are way more interesting to me. But i prioritize having choices in story and gameplay much more than having basic but really well polished features. Graphically both games look extremely good, one is more focused around wide open world with 3rd person in mind and the other is more focused around deus ex-esque city with first person in mind.
IMO the world of Cyberpunk has way more variety with extremely detailed indoor and outdoors environments. It also has a lot of destructible environment too which i think isn't talked enough.
So to your question? Yes i think Cyberpunk will beat RDR2 in those aspects
(even though these are really different games that are doing different things and have different priority)
Truth to be told i haven't enjoyed any of the Rockstar's game after Max Payne 3 and the extremely linear albeit polished Open World Games of their have lost their charm on me. The only thing that always stand out to me are their sandbox environments so that's the only thing for me that would be really hard for Cyberpunk to overcome.
All of the other aspects i have seen of Cyberpunk are way more interesting to me. But i prioritize having choices in story and gameplay much more than having basic but really well polished features. Graphically both games look extremely good, one is more focused around wide open world with 3rd person in mind and the other is more focused around deus ex-esque city with first person in mind.
IMO the world of Cyberpunk has way more variety with extremely detailed indoor and outdoors environments. It also has a lot of destructible environment too which i think isn't talked enough.
So to your question? Yes i think Cyberpunk will beat RDR2 in those aspects
(even though these are really different games that are doing different things and have different priority)
Considering quest limitations in RDR2, without a doubt.
CDPR has delayed the game twice now for this exact purpose. And by that I mean for crafting their open world and polishing little details as opposed to explicitly clearing the bar set by RDR2. So it would be pretty bad if CP2077 didn't.
I take it you never wondered who would win between Superman and Son Goku?
Superman without a doubt.
BatmanI take it you never wondered who would win between Superman and Son Goku?
I take it you never wondered who would win between Superman and Son Goku?
Two fictional characters in two different universes that don't even share the same law of physics. If you really wanted to make an impression you should have asked: "What happens when One Punch Man hits Accelerator?"
Batman obviouslyI take it you never wondered who would win between Superman and Son Goku?
Post automatically merged:
Whoa, you beat me to it.Batman
Post automatically merged:
Actually this is exactly how I choose what food to eat to get healthier.
In term of content I have no doubts, Cyberpunk will feature much more quests and happenings. RDR2 strenghts are acting, Arthur's story which is one of the best ever released, movie like responsiveness of characters and animals, immersion with little perfect details that are cool and fit the genre and the story. (like examaning and cleaning weapons). And the horses are extremely realistic in their behaviour and animations, as a horse owner I can say that much. Some stuff is missing (like cleaning their horseshoe and so on) but as a general use they are basically real, especially in their movements and when you ride them. I don't think Cyberpunk will beat RDR2 in its strenghts, but in content quantity. RDR2 was poor outside of main quest and felt gamey with some side content to be played. But the story was perfectly crafted and extremely touching.
No not a chance. As a level of immersion of detail based on the gameplay that was shown seems to me that Cyberpunk is losing this fight by far. Is also unfair for the game to be compared. One is a FPS the other is an Action game so naturally there will be always a lot of things that make the games different one from another.
Technically i am not impressed. Animations are bad like really bad clucky. Reaction of the ennemies being shot is plain problematic the ennemy do react but shakes like dancing Macarena to then play a fall animation and bump on the ground in ragdoll. Granted i seen the game live at Lucca comix and games and i am also basing this on the video with saw and even the recent one.
- Status