Am I the only one that isn’t super bothered by “muh dialogue options aren’t real”? Lots of games have a linear story. Is it any less engaging than just watching a cutscene? Like I said in my parent comment maybe I just have a pretty low bar before my gamer REEEEEsponse is triggered.
That's true, I feel like people overreact to that kind of thing, honestly. I don't understand all the criticism of Telltale games, for example. I enjoy them very much, I don't need to have two totally different branching storylines, just having agency over my character's reactions is enough to get me into the story.
I played fallout four, didn’t finish it, but not because I hated it or anything. Just because it was so big. At least this game isn’t on that godawful engine Bethesda uses for everything lol.
Like I said I’m not super far in, but the story has been interesting so far. I guess I’m a radical centrist when it comes to this game - it’s hardly the most amazing groundbreaking game I’ve ever played, but it’s not a pile of dog shit either. I’ve had fun doing stealth missions, sneaking around snapping necks and headshotting people.
The combat at least is fun, much more fun than Witcher 3, or even red dead 2, both of which I really enjoyed, but in both those games the combat was the weakest part of the experience. Using the combo of hacking and stealth and gunplay is pretty fun.
Maybe it’s recency bias but I think it’s definitely a better and more polished game than F4. Is it better than Witcher 3? Guess it depends on your preference on setting. Red dead 2? Hmm, I dunno. The graphics are definitely better in RDR, the jury is still out on the story. The combat is better than all three of those.
Dunno if they’re good comparisons, just the games that come to mind as similar that I’ve played a bunch of (finished RDR2 and W3).
TW3 had a more immersive world, mainly because the npcs weren't pretending to be anything more than set dressing. Buggy and dumb npcs are also way less noticeable when you're in 3rd person and don't have to get stuck in traffic with lol. I'll admit the gunplay is alright, but the leveling system feels last minute. Like the icons hint at much cooler level up perks that were scraped for basic stat buffs and the cyberware is just kinda limited.
I guess the biggest issue I have with the game is that it constantly hints at being something it's not (BD mechanic, the net sites, interactable icons on things you can't interact with, npcs with names in certain areas, locked doors everywhere, a train system with stations that aren't accessible, shops that don't sell anything you can use, the whole jacking into other people thing that seems to only show up in some story beats, etc.).
I guess I can handle a game being this dumbed down as long as it tells me "don't interact with the world too much" with its design, but Cyberpunk is just constantly screaming "hey! Look at this thing!" Then you go over and it's like "would be pretty cool if we did that huh?". So yeah, it's just a disappointment really. If they had just stuck to advertising it as a linear story adventure like Witcher was it wouldn't be half bad. They just tried to do too much all at once and didn't finish anything they started.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
It works better in Cyberpunk since youre pretty much an asshole in all three starts
Am I the only one that isn’t super bothered by “muh dialogue options aren’t real”? Lots of games have a linear story. Is it any less engaging than just watching a cutscene? Like I said in my parent comment maybe I just have a pretty low bar before my gamer REEEEEsponse is triggered.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
Dialectics bitch!!
That's true, I feel like people overreact to that kind of thing, honestly. I don't understand all the criticism of Telltale games, for example. I enjoy them very much, I don't need to have two totally different branching storylines, just having agency over my character's reactions is enough to get me into the story.
In most situations its not even that nuanced really its more like
I played fallout four, didn’t finish it, but not because I hated it or anything. Just because it was so big. At least this game isn’t on that godawful engine Bethesda uses for everything lol.
Like I said I’m not super far in, but the story has been interesting so far. I guess I’m a radical centrist when it comes to this game - it’s hardly the most amazing groundbreaking game I’ve ever played, but it’s not a pile of dog shit either. I’ve had fun doing stealth missions, sneaking around snapping necks and headshotting people.
The combat at least is fun, much more fun than Witcher 3, or even red dead 2, both of which I really enjoyed, but in both those games the combat was the weakest part of the experience. Using the combo of hacking and stealth and gunplay is pretty fun.
Maybe it’s recency bias but I think it’s definitely a better and more polished game than F4. Is it better than Witcher 3? Guess it depends on your preference on setting. Red dead 2? Hmm, I dunno. The graphics are definitely better in RDR, the jury is still out on the story. The combat is better than all three of those.
Dunno if they’re good comparisons, just the games that come to mind as similar that I’ve played a bunch of (finished RDR2 and W3).
TW3 had a more immersive world, mainly because the npcs weren't pretending to be anything more than set dressing. Buggy and dumb npcs are also way less noticeable when you're in 3rd person and don't have to get stuck in traffic with lol. I'll admit the gunplay is alright, but the leveling system feels last minute. Like the icons hint at much cooler level up perks that were scraped for basic stat buffs and the cyberware is just kinda limited.
I guess the biggest issue I have with the game is that it constantly hints at being something it's not (BD mechanic, the net sites, interactable icons on things you can't interact with, npcs with names in certain areas, locked doors everywhere, a train system with stations that aren't accessible, shops that don't sell anything you can use, the whole jacking into other people thing that seems to only show up in some story beats, etc.).
I guess I can handle a game being this dumbed down as long as it tells me "don't interact with the world too much" with its design, but Cyberpunk is just constantly screaming "hey! Look at this thing!" Then you go over and it's like "would be pretty cool if we did that huh?". So yeah, it's just a disappointment really. If they had just stuck to advertising it as a linear story adventure like Witcher was it wouldn't be half bad. They just tried to do too much all at once and didn't finish anything they started.
It's your standard triple A title with some bugs
Game is fun, has a few creative things going on and plays well (on my older PC)
~
It does feel like a late beta version though
Playable, bit quirky
It may be best to wait for awhile till it's fully patched and optimized to play