That's it I'm playing a fat bearded overall wearing redneck with tits and a giant you know what. I'm joking but name a recent game that gave you the option to play as one.:lol:

I'll send you my pic so you get it right! :biggrin:

Pretty decent review outside of some SJW whining. I was a little surprised to see the 9/10 score at the end of it. The review itself didn't seem that positive.

Nor is the word "bug" in my comment/joke, so I don't know what you're talking about.

I'm talking about Polygon's review. Seems really weird that they would talk about a small aspect of the game for so long then not mention what other reviewers are saying is a really big problem.

Ah, gotcha. I thought the question marks were directed at me, not the review.

I found witcher 3 to be a too long*, not even counting the expansions. I'm happy with tighter, shorter games with extensive side quests.

*I still loved W3. But mostly due to characters and writing, not for the gameplay.

I bought the Witcher 3 expansions, and never even played them!

Someday…

Prefer the PC Gamer review the most, and it gets more points from me for mentioning Neuromancer.

Also he seemed more interested in reviewing the game as an experience and not as social commentary.

Having read some reviews I feel confident I will really like, maybe even love, this game. For example, the customization seems really complex and the variation in gameplay as well.

I probably will be annoyed by some characters and the heavy handedness of the handling of some sensitive issues, but since this game is supposed to be about a fictive future I think it probably will make the game better.

Most sensitive issues aren't handled carefully in the real world (which also annoys me, but it's the nature of life: Not everyone will think like me), so why should they be handled carefully, all the time, in a game simulating a dystopic future?

I still think it is good of the reviewers to voice these things, since some games are absolute train wrecks when it comes to being "edgy", with no regard for story and immersion. Just crossing lines for the "LOLs".

Since my computer isn't really up to par any more, and the game is buggy, I'll wait until I buy a new computer. Maybe next spring or so. Or maybe even wait until a complete edition to get the best experience. Hmm…

It seems like they may be reaching their goal of >90 on Metacritic despite some fairly negative reviews: https://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/cyberpunk-2077 (91 at the moment of writing).

Now they just have to sell like Rockstar and keep on assuring the gamers that the bugs will be fixed ASAP. Hurray, capitalism…It will be interesting to see how much the bugs will influence the initial sales, as compared to, say, GTA5.

I am not a fanboy (either) but tend to agree with PC Gamer reviews sometimes. At least they are a bit more critical than many others in points that matter as you say. I was surprised, however, by how many spoilers they put in their review. DO NOT read if you want to stay spoiler-free.

Unless you use full Ray-tracing and advanced NVIDIA options the specs required are not that high. I have an AMD 590 and it should get me Recommended & High settings.

I'm going to name him Uncle Cletus Biggus Dickus.:lol:

In honor of the Simpsons and Monty Python.

All good but remember most of that GTA 5 money comes from the online version nowadays. Don't forget Cyberpunk 2077 Online will launch in a year or two.

Anyway it's a long-shot to assume Cyberpunk 2077 will sell as much as GTA. Different genres and games as well. If it does I'll be surprised if not it's still a success.

Heck the Witcher games still keep selling years later. Ten million total sales and counting.

I can't even stomach that site anymore.

Since the website redesign and the old staff leaving it's not what it was ten years ago. They also ran a few CDPR hit-pieces this week like Polygon. So zero credibility to me.

I was referring to the initial sales which can be compared to GTA5's initial sales based on the budget, marketing, and scope of the product. Why would they put so incredibly much effort in it if not to sell? Remember what they said about wanting to make a product that could sell as well as GTA5 when they released Witcher 3 which was smaller in scope (of selling). This is that product and should be comparable to GTA5.

Those initial sales are what (at least the music) industry counts (billboards). I could not care less about this capitalism stuff but it keeps the companies rolling and is therefore interesting in a way.

Sales for a discounted price (remember they had almost free deals too) are not the same as full-price sales. Perhaps the initial sales are not that bad a way of measuring sales impact after all…

I'll eat crow if this game sells as well as GTA5. That game was re-released on different consoles twice in seven years. My guess probably a 5-6 million in the first month.

Man talk about ego and delusions from the industry to think it will be comparable.
For reference "Analysts at Polish brokerage company DIMBOSS believe the budget to develop and promote Cyberpunk 2077 will be in the excess of $314 million USD."

5 million sales will break even at best. So lets hope it sells more.

To reach over 5 million during the first month sets the bar quite high if the Witcher games have sold only 10 million as you say. Let's hope their calculated risk pays off. If the masses take the bait, any investment, no matter how high, will be paid back. The masses taking the bait would probably mean watered down RPGs in the future which could turn against the company from our perspective.

Don't feel bad, you're not the only one. :)

Because of its length, I still haven't gotten around a replay of TW3 that includes all the DLC.