CD Project Red expects Cyberpunk2077 will eventually be a "very good game"

[tikker]

2 hours ago, Sauron said:

But it did launch with the hype and worker abuse, at full price. So...

That it did. For me there's a nuance in games. On one side there's the game including it's "context" (marketing, hype etc.) and on the other side there is simply the game itself. For the former it was for sure hugely underwhelming, problematic and according to some maybe even a flop in everything but sales. As a game on its own, however, (and as someone who wasn't expecially hyped for it) my experience with it was allright. Nothing spectacular, nothing particularly bad. It was a refreshing game to me. Of course the two are inseparably intertwined and given the success of W3 and I think any new CDPR title would have ended up way too overhyped like this.

46 minutes ago, JZStudios said:

Where did W3 have a game breaking bug?

You literally say:

3 hours ago, JZStudios said:

except for 1 NPC in a sidequest being bugged so I couldn't complete a single side quest

This is the same as my CP example and in both cases a game-breaking bug.

47 minutes ago, JZStudios said:

The horse glitch you had to actively attempt to do, it didn't just happen, and it had an identifiable cause. And you specifically said W3 was seen through nostalgia, insinuating it was just as bad or worse as CP77, which it wasn't. W3 had c or d class bugs, CP77 straight deleted your save files. For a LOT of people. It's not even close to the same.

I'm not saying they are the same and neither am I saying that W3's launch was as bad as CP's. I simply feel like this witchunt is the The Verge debacle 2.0 and has gone on long enough. Yes, the launch was terrible and huge mistakes were made, but they know that by now.

47 minutes ago, JZStudios said:

Mmm, X to doubt. Did you watch the video I linked? Also, that texture loading is way more than "minor." You don't know what a game breaking bug is. Check out Matt Mcmuscle's Bug Report videos where he discusses what being a QA tester is like while playing some games. A side quest being incompletable is maybe a B or C. The game not loading shit, you falling through the world, deleting your saves, are A class. TW3 didn't have any of that.

Can we stop with the ad hominems? I did watch it, and it specifically shows building not loading, characters T-posing and literally missing their entire face, so saying W3 has/had none of that is simply not true. The things you mention are huge problems, I completely agree with that, and I never said I approve of them.

57 minutes ago, JZStudios said:

The frequency, for starters. Then the severity/widespread...ness of the problem. TW3 had some very minor bugs like flaming hands very occasionally. The t-posing and missing faces was rare, and fixed pretty quickly. I think it actually only happened in Novigrad, and not every single time you went there. CP77 is consistently broken. The bugs are more serious, and way more frequent.

That I agree with.

45 minutes ago, JZStudios said:

Still doubtful. Those are all digital storefronts, there's no need to reserve shelf space or anything. And it pissing off their users doesn't make much sense. What's the logic behind that? If they don't rush the game out MS and Sony won't let them put it on Xbox and Playstation?

Games are becoming an increasing mess of rushed publications. I'd love to quote Miyamoto, but (and just to be 100% clear again this is not me approving the behaviour) there is the reality of things that if deadlines are not set and enforced once in a while that you will end up in a vicious cycle of "soon", "just one more thing" and before you know it you're the next Duke Nukem Forever or Star Citizen. If you delay stuff too often people will also lose interest and faith. I think CP was realistically an unwinnable situation. They already delayed it thrice. Delaying it further would only have reduced interest and/or increase hype of an even better game even more.

[JZStudios]

2 hours ago, tikker said:

This is the same as my CP example and in both cases a game-breaking bug.

That's not a game breaking bug. Deleting your save or corrupting your save is. Not being able to progress at all is. A minor side quest being broken isn't game breaking.

2 hours ago, tikker said:

Can we stop with the ad hominems? I did watch it, and it specifically shows building not loading, characters T-posing and literally missing their entire face, so saying W3 has/had none of that is simply not true. The things you mention are huge problems, I completely agree with that, and I never said I approve of them.

That wasn't an ad hominem. And neither did I say TW3 had no issues. Once again, for the third fucking time, it had minor bugs, that were fixed shortly after release. I'm not responding after this because A. You objectively don't know how to classify bugs, and B. You keep ignoring me so this argument is pointless.

2 hours ago, tikker said:

That I agree with.

So then you agree that by comparison, which is objectively true, The Witcher 3 was far more stable and less bug ridden at launch than 2077, but disagree that 2077 is worse.

I literally can't argue with this oxymoronic logic. I said in my initial comment that TW3 had few minor bugs and fixes, then you started acting like it was just as bad as 2077. Now you agree with me, but somehow I'm still wrong. I'm done.

[thechinchinsong]

Good. No matter how bad the game was/is, fixing bugs and adding content is not a bad thing. There was no way that 2077 could have lived up to the hype and release was made even worse due to how broken it actually was. I'd rather they take a No Man's Sky approach and make it good after years than abandon a negative launch like very other game these days. 

[ravenshrike]

3 hours ago, JZStudios said:

Deleting your save or corrupting your save is. Not being able to progress at all is

When did we start discussing fallout 2/3/New Vegas?

[AldiPrayogi]

I will buy it once it gets heavily discounted and when I finally upgrade my 1660ti then.

[tikker]

19 hours ago, JZStudios said:

So then you agree that by comparison, which is objectively true, The Witcher 3 was far more stable and less bug ridden at launch than 2077, but disagree that 2077 is worse.

I literally can't argue with this oxymoronic logic. I said in my initial comment that TW3 had few minor bugs and fixes, then you started acting like it was just as bad as 2077. Now you agree with me, but somehow I'm still wrong. I'm done.

How am I ignoring you and where did I say I disagreeing that CP is worse? I said that I think the reviews were too harsh and that their previous work didn't have a great start either. Nowhere did I claim CP was no worse then W3.

 

Re game-breaking, if you literally can't finish a quest due to unintended consequences and you have no way to fix it, then your game instance is broken, no matter in how small an aspect, because I cannot 100% complete the game. I agree that a side-quest being uncompletable isn't as bad as the main quest being uncompletable, but it's still broken. If I sold you a calculator and said the tangent button doesn't work, you'd still consider it a broken calculator, even if one would only use that button once a month. I think as well this is a good juncture to leave it. We'll just end up repeating the same things over and over.

 

19 hours ago, thechinchinsong said:

Good. No matter how bad the game was/is, fixing bugs and adding content is not a bad thing. There was no way that 2077 could have lived up to the hype and release was made even worse due to how broken it actually was. I'd rather they take a No Man's Sky approach and make it good after years than abandon a negative launch like very other game these days. 

This. They've had their flack, suffered the outrage. The best we can do now is let them try their things and be at least appreciative of the fact the (seem to) intend to fix some of the mess.

[tankyx]

I played the game at release, and while it was hot garbage back then, it definitely has potential.

 

I hope the multiple fiascos we had since No Man's Sky (CP, COD, BF2042, Blizzard as a whole and many other I cant remember) is going to teach the right lesson to the investors :

 

- It takes 9 months for a woman to give birth, 9 women can't make a baby in a month.

 

As games grows ever more complex, more money and more staff wont make up for the tighter dead lines. CP is a game that needed at least 4 more years of development, not in crunch or walk of death environment either.

[maartendc]

On 11/28/2021 at 4:26 PM, Montana16 said:

Isn't remotely enough to make it a good game imo unless "updates and improvements" mean overhauling the whole game (which I highly doubt).

 

Right now it is a mediocre game (without taking bugs into account) in my eyes and to me the biggest problems are the story (and the lack of pretty much any meaningful choices) and the lifelessness of the city. So the game will never get any better than an OK game unless that gets changed.

 

Their false marketing and bullshit they were spewing before launch made everything worse so maybe he is hoping that in a few years when all that is forgotten people won't judge the game as harsh as they do now.

 

 

This, 100%.

 

Even without any bugs or performance issues, the game is just very mediocre. They promised a big open world, full of life, full of possibilities. Fact is that, besides the main story, there is very very little to do and appreciate in the game. The open world is just a thin facade without much substance.

 

I don't see this getting fixed to where it is a good game.

[tikker]

On 11/30/2021 at 7:58 PM, tankyx said:

I hope the multiple fiascos we had since No Man's Sky (CP, COD, BF2042, Blizzard as a whole and many other I cant remember) is going to teach the right lesson to the investors :

 

- It takes 9 months for a woman to give birth, 9 women can't make a baby in a month.

I don't think it will, at least not a big or lasting one, for the simple reason that still every single time the community will believe that this time 9 women can make a baby in one month, will still preorder the game, will still play it at launch and will still give it a shot. Look at all the crap people give Ubisoft constantly, yet their games still sell like hot buns. Why? Because the repercussions for us are no games at all.