Cyberpunk 2077

YoungSandwich said:
Yeah but I mean, are you going to let someone review a golf kit if they hate playing golf?
Click to expand...

Games are different. With all the hype and media, many people will buy Cyberpunk and not like it because they might have thought it's like GTA whereas it's a slow paced RPG with lots of dialogue, etc.
 
Forum Reader said:
Games are different. With all the hype and media, many people will buy Cyberpunk and not like it because they might have thought it's like GTA whereas it's a slow paced RPG with lots of dialogue, etc.
Click to expand...
I agree with that he is saying
Most people know what type of games they like.

The trailers have been emphasizing the RPG parts like the skill system, building your character and dialogue options.

If, after watching the trailers, you still confuse Cyberpunk with something like GTA, then you are just an idiot.
 
From my perspective I would expect a game reviewer to complete a game as much as possible, but yes, most gamers hardly do side content, even in RPGs. An easy place to see where this is indicated is to go and have a look at the game achievement unlock percentages unless most people play pirated games.

Again, CDPR is doing nothing unique here, this has been prevalent in RPG games since whenever. What does, however, set these games apart is how exploration and engaging in the side content are incentivised.

I don’t think most people like to go grinding, and grinding is a vast topic on its own. Gearing up and or levelling up is a grind mechanic. Ubi knew this when they made AC: Odyssey, they introduced boosters (which they monetised), because they knew most players wouldn't have grinded side game content to be able to succeed at higher-level game content. I mention this because game reviewers moaned about this in their reviews, however, all content even at nightmare mode is entirely achievable without boosting. It indicated to me that reviewers didn't partake in completion.

I listened to YongYea, and even he didn't initially engage in too much side game activity until he learned that it opens up the main quest line progression. As I said, this isn't unique to CP2077, non-linear RPGs have existed since the 80s, and reviewers should know this.
 
Don't know why anyone bothers with these "gaming" journalists anymore. They're all pushing some woke agenda these days. If I'm interested in a game I go to YouTube to watch a let's play video, to see if I find the gameplay loop entertaining, then head over to the game's discussion forums to find if there's anything egregiously wrong with it. I don't care about anyone else's "opinion."
 
Forum Reader said:
Games are different. With all the hype and media, many people will buy Cyberpunk and not like it because they might have thought it's like GTA whereas it's a slow paced RPG with lots of dialogue, etc.
Click to expand...
It reminds me a lot of Mass Effect before they stuffed it up so I'm perfectly ok with that...
 
I read the Gamespot review, and though I don't know when the interview which The Quartering picked apart was made I don't pick up anything odd with the review.

She played 50hrs, and that is way more than most respected reviewers said took them to complete the game.

www.gamespot.com

Cyberpunk 2077 Review

Cyberpunk 2077 has standout side quests and strong main characters, though its buggy, superficial world and lack of purpose bring it down.
www.gamespot.com www.gamespot.com

All I see here now is a reviewer being told not to have her opinion. Stupid, really.
 
Beyond.Celsus said:
Game sounds short.
So far most reviewers state you can finish the main story and most of the major side quests within 40 - 50 hours.

That's dreadfully short for a open world RPG
Especially since the main story alone in Witcher 3 would take you the same amount of time.
Click to expand...

Reviews that I've run into for the game had one thing in common. The reviewers asked "wait, was that supposed to happen??" , reloaded the game to an earlier save point and did things differently, with a completely different outcome.
For example, in a particular encounter an NPC is supposed to betray you, but the reviewer had hacked and disabled all their body tech, leaving the betrayer completely helpless as they sprung the betrayal and it futzed like a cheap candle whereas before it obviously turned out differently.

This means you can play the game however you want and it seems to adapt just fine. It also means replayability in terms of going full combat, full stealth, all hacker etc.

That sounds like fun to me and a game story that may be short but can be achieved through multiple ways.
 
DMNknight said:
Reviews that I've run into for the game had one thing in common. The reviewers asked "wait, was that supposed to happen??" , reloaded the game to an earlier save point and did things differently, with a completely different outcome.
For example, in a particular encounter an NPC is supposed to betray you, but the reviewer had hacked and disabled all their body tech, leaving the betrayer completely helpless as they sprung the betrayal and it futzed like a cheap candle whereas before it obviously turned out differently.

This means you can play the game however you want and it seems to adapt just fine. It also means replayability in terms of going full combat, full stealth, all hacker etc.

That sounds like fun to me and a game story that may be short but can be achieved through multiple ways.
Click to expand...
Absolutely

If it is as immersive a Witcher 3 (I've done about 4 playthroughs) then I will most likely be doing multiple playthroughs.

It is still a bit disappointing though. Witcher 3 is deliciously long. So long that it is easy to forget certain things and even after another playthrough, the story and quests still feel fresh and new.

The shorter it is, the less there is to forget and the quicker it becomes familiar.
I'm not one to replay something to do different styles. Sure it's fun to do a quest in a different way, but it is still the same quest. The less there are, the easier it is to become monotonous.

The different choices you can make really need to change a lot regarding the outcome and development of the world and story.
If I can play 3 different playthroughs and in each one the quests and stories had different outcomes, then I would be sound as a pound.
 
By the time the game comes out; some might not even enjoy it any more seeing how in they are with the latest who said what. It makes me think of this:


tenor.gif
 
Fulcrum29 said:
All I see here now is a reviewer being told not to have her opinion. Stupid, really.
Click to expand...
Except nobody cares about her opinion, they care about what the game is like.

Reviewers need to be neutral. Graphics, gameplay, sound, story etc. - all the traditional stuff that makes up a game. If it hurts your feels then too bad, leave it out of the review...
 
Mike Hoxbig said:
Except nobody cares about her opinion, they care about what the game is like.

Reviewers need to be neutral. Graphics, gameplay, sound, story etc. - all the traditional stuff that makes up a game. If it hurts your feels then too bad, leave it out of the review...
Click to expand...

Then why read the review? To say that nobody cares about her opinion, like nobody will care about your opinion. Yes, games are a personal experience, and those experiences are you own thus I don't know why you must expect a reviewer to be neutral to change their views to suit your own.
 
Fulcrum29 said:
Then why read the review? To say that nobody cares about her opinion, like nobody will care about your opinion. Yes, games are a personal experience, and those experiences are you own thus I don't know why you must expect a reviewer to be neutral to change their views to suit your own.
Click to expand...
That's just it. It doesn't need to suit my own or anybody else's. Just stick to the basics and review the game.

Another reviewer at Gamespot may have rated the game differently. But because she was assigned to it, and with her own feelings about it, rated it just above average, it now reflects as Gamespot's rating and not her own...
 
Mike Hoxbig said:
That's just it. It doesn't need to suit my own or anybody else's. Just stick to the basics and review the game.

Another reviewer at Gamespot may have rated the game differently. But because she was assigned to it, and with her own feelings about it, rated it just above average, it now reflects as Gamespot's rating and not her own...
Click to expand...
There is your problem:

her + feelings = ??

//runs for the safe-hills
 
Mike Hoxbig said:
That's just it. It doesn't need to suit my own or anybody else's. Just stick to the basics and review the game.

Another reviewer at Gamespot may have rated the game differently. But because she was assigned to it, and with her own feelings about it, rated it just above average, it now reflects as Gamespot's rating and not her own...
Click to expand...

Why does it matter to you? Everyone has an issue with PC Gamer's and Gamespot's score, why, because they didn't rate it 90% like the others?

It is Gamespot's rating, and you seem to have a problem with that. Reviewers are people like you, with the exception that they have a medium to publish their views on.
 
I was going to hold back on playing the game, but I am going to try 100% on a single play through and see how long it takes. I will play the game on hard, though I don't know what options are available at this time.

This December I will do a 100% corpo and time my gameplay accordingly. I may even perhaps record my entire gameplay.

I will start to play on Sunday night.
 
Okay, it seems everyone popular is streaming CP2077. Shroud have +100k viewers at the moment,

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X