Cyberpunk 2077 - just very mediocre?

[maartendc]

Hello all,

 

I wanted to share my thoughts on Cyberpunk 2077, something that has been bugging me.

 

I feel like every reviewer out there is so focused on the bugs, (which are terrible, no doubt), that something important is getting overlooked:

 

Even if the game was technically perfect, with zero bugs, it would still be just a very mediocre open world game. Here are some of my reasons:

- The story is good, but pretty short. Not amazing.

- The side missions (with a few exceptions) are boring, lack depth. (compared to Witcher 3, which had amazing side quests)

- The world itself feels empty, very little to do. (compared to Witcher 3 or RDR2, where the whole world feels alive)

- NPC AI is ridiculously bad, no interaction. (compared to RDR2 for example)

- Driving / car handling is appalling, and the mini-map gps is bad.

- Stealth / hacking mechanics are not well executed. Most people just play guns blazing because the game forces your hand.

- RPG elements are not balanced, crafting is not useful, the economy in the game is not balanced, etc.

 

I had some fun moments, but personally I am just very disappointed in the game, because it is just... mediocre. Not horrible, just very meh, bland, forgettable.

 

What do you guys think? What would be your opinion of the game, if it had zero bugs?

 

Thanks!

 

[jaslion]

From the little I've played and interacted with the game it just seems like a generic but pretty open world game. So yeah forgettable I guess. It doesn't even look that good too, do like the art direction sometimes.

[Drama Lama]

Wait what? Gameplay is also important for a Game, not only Graphics, perfornance and bugs ?

[Rybo]

You can choose your genitalia.  Thus, your argument is invalid.  

[tikker]

It was overhyped by both sides. If there wouldn't have been such a hypetrain around it I think there wouldn't have been such an outrage. I agree with your points about they AI and driving, they are not the best.

 

We should also realize, however, that his isn't just Witcher 3 or RDR2 in a cyberpunk setting. It's its own game. If you don't compare it to the giants, I think it's a fine middle of the road game.

[Radium_Angel]

A line comes to mind (I've not played this, so take that for what it's worth) about massive "open worlds"

 

"I mile wide and an inch deep"

Yes, CP2077 looks very pretty, but the gameplay I"ve seen looks...naff

[MonkeyWrench]

11 minutes ago, maartendc said:

Hello all,

 

I wanted to share my thoughts on Cyberpunk 2077, something that has been bugging me.

 

I feel like every reviewer out there is so focused on the bugs, (which are terrible, no doubt), that something important is getting overlooked:

 

Even if the game was technically perfect, with zero bugs, it would still be just a very mediocre open world game. Here are some of my reasons:

- The story is good, but pretty short. Not amazing.

- The side missions (with a few exceptions) are boring, lack depth. (compared to Witcher 3, which had amazing side quests)

- The world itself feels empty, very little to do. (compared to Witcher 3 or RDR2, where the whole world feels alive)

- NPC AI is ridiculously bad, no interaction. (compared to RDR2 for example)

- Driving / car handling is appalling, and the mini-map gps is bad.

- Stealth / hacking mechanics are not well executed. Most people just play guns blazing because the game forces your hand.

- RPG elements are not balanced, crafting is not useful, the economy in the game is not balanced, etc.

 

I had some fun moments, but personally I am just very disappointed in the game, because it is just... mediocre. Not horrible, just very meh, bland, forgettable.

 

What do you guys think? What would be your opinion of the game, if it had zero bugs?

 

Thanks!

 

So you'd say GTA 5 is better than cyberpunk?

[Rybo]

Just now, Radium_Angel said:

A line comes to mind (I've not played this, so take that for what it's worth) about massive "open worlds"

 

"I mile wide and an inch deep"

Yes, CP2077 looks very pretty, but the gameplay I"ve seen looks...naff

Funny enough, I think that about Zelda Breath of the Wild (a mile wide and an inch deep), and that game was hailed as a masterpiece.  

Which begs the question: am I just weirdly interpreting that axiom, or is the depth of the mechanics less important than we give it credit for?

[ErykYT3]

Anyone who says the game is just okay is really not seeing the bigger picture in my opinion. 

I've recently been playing through Read Dead Redemption 2 and that game is still stunning, my second playthrough and I'm still astonished. 

 

I feel that cyberpunk was/is interesting due to the hype that was surrounding it. Similarly with RDR2, I gotta be in a certain mood at times to feel immersed unless I've already been playing it previously for some time like now. 

 

I cannot complete the game as it stands as it's impossible to complete a mission due to a bug. The shit I've seen is incredibly disappointing and more so when compared to some successful games of the past 2/3 years. Cyberpunk was in development for what, 7/8 years? 

Forget the world, there's nothing to do but hopefully I can enjoy the story. Well, when my ripperdoc is floating halfway across the room on an imaginary chair that seems to be the most fun I've had with the game since launch, bugs.

 

The map to me looks like it is made from prefab blocks that have had small changes made to look different. Taking the same elevator to the same level of each building feels tiring after some time. 

 

 

 

[Radium_Angel]

30 minutes ago, Rybo said:

am I just weirdly interpreting that axiom, or is the depth of the mechanics less important than we give it credit for?

I feel the gameplay should be king. Pixel graphics games showcase that GFX ain't the be-all-end-all to a game.

 

37 minutes ago, Rybo said:

You can choose your genitalia.  Thus, your argument is invalid.  

Out of a twisted sense of curiosity, does it affect gameplay?

46 minutes ago, maartendc said:

I had some fun moments,

Let me ask you this, because I'm curious, if you follow one of the random people that inhabit this world (like in the shopping distrct that is so commonly seen in the trailers/gameplay) do they go something with a purpose, or do they just wander in a loop, forever repeating?

[ErykYT3]

8 hours ago, Radium_Angel said:

Let me ask you this, because I'm curious, if you follow one of the random people that inhabit this world (like in the shopping distrct that is so commonly seen in the trailers/gameplay) do they go something with a purpose, or do they just wander in a loop, forever repeating?

I don't know about this but the police in this game sucks ass.

 

There are all these crime scenes dotted around the map that are apparently one of the best and easiest ways to get loot/ level up or whatever but anyway. If you've committed a crime one police guy might chase you for a while then they walk off. yep, that's right. they stop. And those awesome cars they have? placeholders. They cannot drive them. 

 

Let me get this through to people. There are no police chases in this game. The game is called CYBERPUNK 2077.

[Rybo]

5 minutes ago, Radium_Angel said:

Out of a twisted sense of curiosity, does it affect gameplay?

I haven't played it yet (due in part to the fact that there is gratuitous nudity.  Not a game to play when you live in a house with people in it), but one would hope it changes things at least on a superficial level. 

 

Quote

I feel the gameplay should be king. Pixel graphics games showcase that GFX ain't the be-all-end-all to a game.

I think you're interpreting "a mile wide and inch deep" weirdly as well  My interpretation is like this (let's use Breath of the Wild as an example).  In BoTW, you can cook foods that have benefits.  There are probably hundreds of recipes in the game, all with unique recipes and graphics.  But they all have identical effects, based in large part on certain ingredients.  If your recipe includes truffle, you're going to get bonus hearts.  If it includes bananas, you're going to get a strength bonus.  If it includes nothing interesting, you're just going to regain health.  Thus, making a huge, complicated dish with rare ingredients doesn't matter.  Just combine a truffle and an apple or 5 bananas and you'll get the best result for the effect you want.  There's no depth to the recipes.  

Though now that I've written it out, it does kinda match what you said: since the recipes don't really have any gameplay mechanics (there's no incentive to search for quality ingredients), you'd probably consider it an inch deep like I do.  

[Radium_Angel]

17 minutes ago, Rybo said:

I haven't played it yet (due in part to the fact that there is gratuitous nudity.  Not a game to play when you live in a house with people in it), but one would hope it changes things at least on a superficial level. 

 

I think you're interpreting "a mile wide and inch deep" weirdly as well  My interpretation is like this (let's use Breath of the Wild as an example).  In BoTW, you can cook foods that have benefits.  There are probably hundreds of recipes in the game, all with unique recipes and graphics.  But they all have identical effects, based in large part on certain ingredients.  If your recipe includes truffle, you're going to get bonus hearts.  If it includes bananas, you're going to get a strength bonus.  If it includes nothing interesting, you're just going to regain health.  Thus, making a huge, complicated dish with rare ingredients doesn't matter.  Just combine a truffle and an apple or 5 bananas and you'll get the best result for the effect you want.  There's no depth to the recipes.  

Though now that I've written it out, it does kinda match what you said: since the recipes don't really have any gameplay mechanics (there's no incentive to search for quality ingredients), you'd probably consider it an inch deep like I do.  

Pretty much, lots of "open world" where you can run around and look at all the pretty lights, but interacting with them provides little to no benefit, and regardless of the section of the world you are in, the effect of said interaction is the same.

 

Yes, I get it, it's very difficult to program (I was a mainframe programmer, I know) and virtually impossible to program individual effects for each item in the game, but it is fairly simple to make a database like this:

 

Banana Effects:

 

(1) Rotten, -1 health

(2) Sweet: +1 energy

(3) Unripe: -1 stamina

(4): Fried: +1 strength

 

and so forth, and each time you eat/use a banana in your cooking, the system does an RNG on the effects, so at least you can get some variation in the cooking.

 

Ditto with CP2077, each street vendor can offer different things with a maxtrix of different effects, so some variety can be programmed in.

26 minutes ago, ErykYT3 said:

There are no police chases in this game.

Wow, that's bad...

[Vishera]

I really like the game,played for 70 hours,only a bunch of side quests and the last main mission remain.

1 hour ago, maartendc said:

- The story is good, but pretty short. Not amazing.

I agree,and i really like Johnny  

1 hour ago, maartendc said:

The side missions (with a few exceptions) are boring, lack depth. (compared to Witcher 3, which had amazing side quests)

I think they were alright,some side missions are kinda part of the main story - those are the best ones.

1 hour ago, maartendc said:

- The world itself feels empty, very little to do. (compared to Witcher 3 or RDR2, where the whole world feels alive)

To me it doesn't feel empty,with the amount of crowds set to the highest it feels alive.

I do agree that there is little to do if you don't want to do quests.

1 hour ago, maartendc said:

- NPC AI is ridiculously bad, no interaction. (compared to RDR2 for example)

True

1 hour ago, maartendc said:

- Driving / car handling is appalling, and the mini-map gps is bad.

I like the handling,i agree about the mini-map.

But i have more to add,it's frustrating that in a lot of cars most of the peripheral vision is obstructed,it varies from car to car.

 

Excellent (Porsche did a good job):

Spoiler

 

Manageable (Type-66 Avenger):

Spoiler

 

Can't see the road (Caliburn,fastest car in the game) :

 

Spoiler

Also there are no mirrors,good luck going in reverse (you won't see a thing)

 

1 hour ago, maartendc said:

- Stealth / hacking mechanics are not well executed. Most people just play guns blazing because the game forces your hand.

Never engaged with those mechanisms.

1 hour ago, maartendc said:

- RPG elements are not balanced, crafting is not useful, the economy in the game is not balanced, etc.

I enjoyed exploiting these,My Katana kills in two hits,my assault rifle is a one hit kill,my armor is 5000,and i am only level 38.

Only the police ninjas can kill me since their weapons ignore armor,so i try to kill them before they shoot.

1 hour ago, maartendc said:

I had some fun moments, but personally I am just very disappointed in the game, because it is just... mediocre. Not horrible, just very meh, bland, forgettable.

I wouldn't call it forgettable,it's a good game.

[Vishera]

6 minutes ago, Radium_Angel said:

Wow, that's bad...

That's true,you can even outrun them on foot,they usually spawn right behind you or right in front of you and stay there.

[Radium_Angel]

3 minutes ago, Vishera said:

That's true,you can even outrun them on foot,they usually spawn right behind you or right in front of you and stay there.

I really don't like games where the NPCs teleport in, breaks immersion. At least have them run in from off screen or something. 

[Vishera]

5 minutes ago, Radium_Angel said:

I really don't like games where the NPCs teleport in, breaks immersion. At least have them run in from off screen or something. 

Those are not normal NPCs,those are police chases...

[maartendc]

2 hours ago, Drama Lama said:

Wait what? Gameplay is also important for a Game, not only Graphics, perfornance and bugs ?

Absolutely.

Which is actually the main comment I am making: The GAMEPLAY is actually very very mediocre. Most of the things I brought up have to do with gameplay.

 

Most people are complaining about the bugs and graphics. But actually the game and the way it plays as a whole are just not that good.

1 hour ago, Radium_Angel said:

I feel the gameplay should be king. Pixel graphics games showcase that GFX ain't the be-all-end-all to a game.

 

Out of a twisted sense of curiosity, does it affect gameplay?

Let me ask you this, because I'm curious, if you follow one of the random people that inhabit this world (like in the shopping distrct that is so commonly seen in the trailers/gameplay) do they go something with a purpose, or do they just wander in a loop, forever repeating?

Absolutely it affects gameplay, and besides bugs and glitches, very few people talk about this.

 

No, if you were to follow random people around, they would just walk around forever I am pretty sure. All NPC's are mindless zombies just wandering around.

 

To me, the problem with this game is not any one issue. It is not JUST the NPC's, not JUST the bad driving, not JUST the boring fetch-quests, it is not JUST the obnoxious phone mechanics.....But when you take all these things TOGETHER, it just adds up to a very mediocre experience (and that is being generous).

 

In the end, it is so disappointing, BECAUSE the story is good, and because it had the potential to be so much more.

 

Honestly, I feel like the game would have benefited from NOT being open world, being just a more linear, tight, story-driven game, and they could have made a true masterpiece. Instead, they wasted tons of development time on trying to build an open world, and they didn't quite pull it off. They were too ambitious, and they couldn't deliver.

[Sarra]

I had a GTX 980, paired with a R9 3900XT. At 1080p, it wasn't bad. 45-55FPS medium settings. Then, I got a 1440p IPS panel that does 144hz. GTX 980 was giving me 30-35FPS. Gave up... Even downsamping, it wouldn't run 1440p. Then I picked up a Vega 64, and now I can play medium settings and get 55-65FPS, but I finished the game's story, so... I set it aside, and now I'll just wait until more content, fixes, and maybe DLC are available.

 

I agree with most of the points, though. It's a game that does lots of stuff, but it doesn't really do any of it very well, as far as gameplay goes.

 

After playing through the game, it's pretty obvious that this game needed at least another year in the oven, though I'm gambling on a No Man's Sky style redemption. CDPR needs to do one of two things here: 1) STFU, put their heads down, open their wallets up, and dev the shit out of this game, and turn it into what it should have been, or 2) open their wallets up, dev the shit out of this game, and let us know what they're doing. Anything not involving them re-investing their money made from this game's sales into improving it will make the game not worth it, ever.

[Foi]

9 hours ago, maartendc said:

- Stealth / hacking mechanics are not well executed. Most people just play guns blazing because the game forces your hand.

- RPG elements are not balanced, crafting is not useful, the economy in the game is not balanced, etc.

I found it to be the opposite. I made a loud/rush build but several missions wanted you go be stealth (Riders of the storm + Walk The Line as examples) and if you search around there is always a 'stealth path' to the objective. Although I also found this to ruin the point of a build since I found that I could be stealthy with barely any points into cool. But there are still reasons to spec out a certain way like for cyberware.

 

Hacking is pretty fun at first but gets boring real fast since its basically look at a NPC, use hack, rinse and repeat. Late game hacking gets even worse because of how OP legendary ping is because you just look at people in a building and hack them. 

 

And crafting is OP. Besides the exploits with crafting atm, legendary weapons (look at comrade's hammer) and upgrading equipment to legendary for mods are pretty useful.