It'd an odd mentality. For many people, there seem to only be two options, a 0 or a 10. Or at least, that's the scale they work off of. Not often do people place something in the middle. A quick look at FO76's user score reflect this (though many of those user reviews are new accounts attempting to bomb the game intentionally, whether it's rational or not).

For this reason, I like to read reviews that don't boil down to a number. I think it incentivizes people to to essentially skim over the review and go straight for the rating. It gives them a reason to discard everything in an article, or at least not pay much attention to it.

I do hope that one of the things they consider when designing Cyberpunk are these archaic design choices, and hope they steer very clear from them.

The hyperbole surrounding RDR2 shouldn't come as a surprise. RDR1 suffered from the same exaggerated hype. A lot of people acted like it was some kind of great revolution in gaming when in reality it's just a GTA clone in a cool setting.

It's good to hear CDPR has set aside extra time dedicated to playtesting. When you look at the release state of some recent games, it's obvious that more companies need to do that.

I wouldn't worry too much.

I'm not the biggest fan of CDPR when it comes to game design and mechanics, but I do hold them in higher regard than Rockstar.

I remember Rockstar all the way back from when they were called DMA design and made Amiga games.

They were always about the spectacle and about being "cool" - and that hasn't really changed.

Now, there's no doubt that they were on to something really special with GTA 3 on PS2 - making such an established formula work in a 3D world was really something.

But, ever since then, their "progress" has been about budget and production values - and much less in terms of game design.

I expect Cyberpunk to be better - but I'm not at all convinced it will be a significant step up from Witcher 3, which I consider to be a pretty bland gameplay experience (story/presentation was top notch though!).

But, time will tell.

My point is more about the low-hanging fruit when it comes to marketing. Their recent claim about how making "high quality games" is how to sell is a little too conceited for my tastes.

I think they need an ego check. Sooner would be better than later.

Thanks go to @Silver for finding this one.:thumbsup:

Gamingbolt interviewed level designer Miles Tost about Cyberpunk 2077

Lol.

CDPR says: "We want to release our game in a very polished state"

The Butthurt: Nooooooooo!

This game will cause rivers of tears. :p

This game will be a buggy mess upon release but will still be freaking good.

Maybe they meant "in a very polish state"?.

I'm not going to give up on this pun!

I think they mean as streamlined and "for the masses" as RDR2 :)

The corporation has taken a firm hold of those developers. As well as the games-as-movies fans of CDPR.

It seems like that's already coming to pass. :)

Sorry. Actual dinosaurs went extinct. I'm waiting Nintendo's ones follow.

Nah, it's the new age of endless identical Marvel movie fans - who also appreciate games playing themselves while they click dialogue options :)

Having flashbacks to the various cut-scene debates.:lol:

Anyway I have no problem with cut-scene's with dialogue choices so meh.

Seriously can't see why this bothers RPG players but whatever.:lonely:

Bothers? I think it's great that there are games for everyone.

Some people like games that are challenging, with intricate mechanics - and some players like interactive movies where they don't have to engage with annoying gameplay that gets in the way.

Like I said, it's the same with movies. These days, the biggest hits aren't about the script, the acting, the characters or the plot - it's about the spectacle and the CGI.

I think that's cool. I have other games and I have indie movies with interesting scripts.

As for Cyberpunk - anything can happen. But everything I've seen and heard - so far - has been about hyperbole and appealing to as many people as possible.

From experience, that tends to mean a very low barrier of entry.

Maybe I'm wrong - but I very much doubt it.

RDR2 is no different. It's based on ancient and archaic game design from the 80s and 90s. It's incredibly well produced, though - and if you look at the response from both critics and users alike - that's what matters.

Marketing and production values = popularity.

The cut-scene debates are pretty funny. The best part is when you have people claiming CDPR's games have too many while defending Bioware games that have just as many if not more. :)

So true BioWare perfected the whole interactive cut-scene trend in RPG's.:biggrin:

I'm not the biggest fan of Bioware games when it comes to writing - but I'd say most of their games are much better balanced in terms of mixing up interesting gameplay with dialogue sequences.

That said, Witcher and Witcher 2 both had less focus on dialogue than Witcher 3.

For Cyberpunk, my assumption is that it will follow the Witcher 3 formula - given its success.

I don't actually know if that's the case, but that would be my assumption.

Since I found Witcher 3 gameplay entirely forgettable and weak-sauce - I have to focus on the dialogue cutscenes - which would seem to be the primary appeal of Witcher 3. For both fans and non-fans alike.

To me, certainly, the game was saturated with endless dialogue sequences. The only reason I could stomach that kind of "gameplay" was that the writing was excellent from start to finish.

But, again, to each his own.

I imagine people who enjoy just going through the motions - or people who felt challenged by the gameplay - would have a different experience.

To me, that's cool. There's no way I can argue against that.

All I can say is that I had a different experience.

But I still enjoyed Witcher 3 - and I expect to enjoy Cyberpunk.

But I find the base assumption that it's going to be this gaming revolution laughable - and utterly counter to my experience with Witcher.

I haven't seen a decent combination of interesting gameplay and dialogue in a Bioware game for a very long time.

I'd have to go all the way back to DA:O to find what was, in my opinion, a good balance of those things. ME: Andromeda certainly didn't have it, nor did DA:I from what I played.

Some seem to still really like modern Bioware though, and I'm genuinely glad there are people out there who do. Part of me still holds on to the hope that they'll start making the kind of games I really enjoy again one day, even though I know there's almost zero chance of that happening.

Can't really disagree but hey I want Cyberpunk 2077 to be an improved version of Witcher III. That game won so many GOTY awards so they don't have to revolutionize.

Just improve the formula and fans will buy it. Just don't be like Bethesda and get complacent, or they will sooner or later develop a game like Fallout 76.:biggrin:

Well, there's no denying that modern Bioware games are weaker than they used to be.

Personally, however, I quite enjoyed both Inquisition and Andromeda. Certainly much, much more than Witcher 3 - in terms of gameplay.

That said, Witcher 3 destroys all Bioware games when it comes to story and writing - and that includes my favorite ones, like KotOR and Dragon Age.

But I was always a gameplay over story guy.

I'm almost certain it will be, so no worries there.

They'll probably never understand open world gameplay like Bethsoft, so no worries there either ;)