Cyberpunk 2077 - Reviews
 

Some more reviews for Cyberpunk 2077:

Ars Technica
Game Informer - Score: 9/10
GamesBeat - Score: 3/5
GameSpew - Score: 10/10
GameSpot - Score: 7/10
GamesRadar+ - Score: 5/5
GameWatcher - Score: 9/10
God is a Geek - Score: 10/10
IGN - Score: 9/10
PC Gamer - Score: 78/100
PCGamesN - Score: 9/10
Polygon
RPG Site - Score: 9/10
Screen Rant - Score: 4/5
The Verge
TheGamer - Score: 5/5
Trusted Reviews - Score: 4/5
VG247 - Score: 5/5
VGC - Score: 5/5
Windows Central - Score: 5/5

More information.

9/10, 5/5, …, 10/10. Seems like an ok'ish game.

Some dare to give it 3/5 and 7/10 though. The nerve

Too many sameish scores to read one by one…
I'll be waiting for 6/10, now that would definetly be an unique read.

It's a shame when scores are skewed by bugs. I guess, though, if bugs are bad enough that it affects your engagement and immersion in the game, you've got to review the experience it provided.

Can't wait to read the Polygon review. 3 out of 10, didn't solve world hunger or spend enough time talking about the dangers of tattoos. /s

Re-post for those who don't read my news thread.:p

Cyberpunk 2077 - Tabletop RPGs Road From 2020 to the Year 2077Cyberpunk 2077 Review Megathread - Reddit

Really not surprised we've been told for the last year it's short, buggy, and unoptimized as hell. I'm sure CDPR will continue to patch the game just like they did Witcher III.

Also on consoles it has a 46GB Day 0 patch and another larger Day 1 patch on the way. Those who pre-load on Steam or GOG just have to worry about the Day 1 patch.

Not surprised by PCGamer and I'm sure Polygon will find some way to knockoff points for some outrage. As both sites continue to run hit-pieces against CDPR this week.

Short my ass.

Most of the reviewers rushed through the main quest. Some reviewers are pointing out that certain side quests affect the main quest and endings so they aren’t getting close to the full experience.

Reviewers nowadays seem conditioned to call any RPG "short" if it's not 100 hours long. That and, like you mentioned, they're rushing through the game to get the review out on time.

There are also so many situations where short main quest and short game are being used interchangeably that I don't trust a reviewer to be talking about the latter unless they're very explicit about that.

Unless that game as a whole really does end up being smaller than I expect, this is shaping up to be one of those situations where one game randomly gets criticized for stuff plenty of other games do. The main quest in any Elder Scrolls game is maybe 20 hours, but nobody goes around complaining about how short those games are.

Oh thanks for quoting me I'm special it seems.:kiss:

Some context here I'm referring to all the previews who quoted pretty much what I wrote above this whole year. It's by no means my opinion in the slightest.

So don't shoot the messenger.
I'm one of the few CDPR fanboys on this site.:stupid:

The Gamespot review complained there was too much to do, so much so that it minimized the main quest. ;)

Not really sure how to read that…

Nothing wrong with that Witcher III had the same problem.;)

I always got side tracked with side missions over the main quest.

Right? And I love that with the Elder Scrolls games. So, the real question is, Is the world interesting enough to do all that side exploration.

It sounds like he actually did some exploring unlike most of the other reviewers. I'm tempted to check out that review, but I despise GameSpot.

Depends CDPR admitted each three main origin campaign is at least 30+hrs. With all the side content though each play-throuh should double or even more that amount of time.

Nightwire videos also suggested moving around, and exploring the city takes time. The option of taking different paths through the city to solve quests interests me as well.

I'm reading a lot of reviews talking about not even firing a gun for 15 hrs or more. So that should put to rest all those crazy GTA comparisons from earlier this year as well.

The biggest problem seems to bugs and I'm not surprised by that.

Yeah, the Gamespot reviewer played as a stealthy hacker, which would be my preferred playstyle too.

But like other games in this genre (techno RPGs I am calling it), he said the main quests actually required you to kill things, so you can't go pure stealth and hacking apparently? Would like to know that.

Reminds me of Deus Ex (later ones) and Alpha Protocol which had the same issues.

Right. To me, that's the key. I think it will be.

This is terrible! I need to stay away from all things Cyberpunk for the next year or so. But there's going to be a lot of funny videos of characters going into T-pose! Oh the temptation….
?? The Polygon review is in X's list. They spend multiple paragraphs on the treatment of transsexuals. The word "bug" is nowhere in the article.

I was quickly scanning the written reviews and the one on rpgsite.com looks like a fine, comprehensive, and well worth reading long form written review.

Some of the other reviews given links to seem very much agenda driven and focusing on little silly nitpicks (political crap) and complaining about things that many or most gamers won't care about.

https://www.rpgsite.net/review/10549…nk-2077-review

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.