Cyberpunk 2077 - Reviews

Originally Posted by largh
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.

Unfortunately, I think more mainsteam games from CDPR in the future are inevitable as their budget and sales goals continue to increase.

I'll be picking this up, maybe not on the day of release. Give it a week or so to get a patch or two out. I'm knee-deep in Yakuza: Like a Dragon right now, anyway. Not to mention the other… uh, dozens… of games I'm playing as well. Not to mention the backlog…

But yes, will be getting this. Looks great. I was looking forward to it solving world hunger, but maybe next time, with Cyberpunk 2177.

Gamespot pre-review on Youtube was OK, both Kallie Plagge and Jake Dekker seemed to agree on most points, and of course the written review looks similar to what they said. But as they admitted themselves, they had to rush through it, so I'd rather wait for a later review. Someone's sleepy opinion after spending a 50h-crunch gameplay is not always fully developed (the same is probably true for all those early "reviews").

Some points are probably not too far from home though. The main story is "short", but it's always relative, and it's also proportional to the whole game. In The Witcher 3, there are sidequests that are related to the main story, and a lot of fetch-quests that are there for players who want to play longer, even if that means more repetitive and less cohesive content (and sometimes, burn-out). So, the main quest and closely-related sidequests may appear short in comparison of the whole "completionist" duration of the game.

It seems to be exactly the same here, no suprise. I'm not worried, it's up to the players to decide what and how much they want to do. What concerns me, however, is the report that players are more "spammed" with those fetch-quests, which could be annoying. One quickly learns to ignore them, I suppose, after all it was exactly like that in some of the Assassin's Creed games (at least before Syndicate, I wouldn't know for the later ones) and others.

No matter what, it looks like an awesome world to explore and discover!

Originally Posted by Couchpotato
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.

Yeah, I know it is playable with my current computer (i7-6700k, vega 64). However, the reviews seem to say that the performance is iffy even with recommended specs, and I want a great experience both graphically and performance-wise.

Great graphics and 60fps+ on my 1440 screen is not attainable for me at the moment.

Originally Posted by SveNitoR
Yeah, I know it is playable with my current computer (i7-6700k, vega 64). However, the reviews seem to say that the performance is iffy even with recommended specs, and I want a great experience both graphically and performance-wise.

Great graphics and 60fps+ on my 1440 screen is not attainable for me at the moment.

I never put much stock in performance reviews as most of them use top of the line hardware most PC Gamers don't have. Steam shows most have mid-range systems.

The PS4 & XBox One versions are running on low and Recommend settings.

Lol, the GameBeat guy was expecting a life changing game, so he punished the game for not being a life changing game. He wanted to be able to talk with everyone, enter all buildings, etc.

TheVerge, Polygon and Kotaku were predictable: they're all about their political agenda: transgender, crunch, racial stereotypes…

GameSpot too (I think the guy that did the 16 hour preview would be more suited to do the review, not this reviewer, who didn't find the meaning of life at the end of the game).

But most reviews agree on one thing: it's a buggy game. And I doubt most of it will be patched on day one. But even then, we have to consider that one reviewer noticed that most fixes on the patch they received late, were only felt when he started a new game. I bet most reviewers didn't start a new game, with the review embargo date so close.

Anyway, I still remember how I played Bethesda's Daggerfall, with the game crashing every couple minutes and low framerates (my fault too, as my PC then barely met minimum requirements, a 486 66Hz) but that didn't stop me from enjoying a (then) new experience. But I was very young, >I was even impressed by a sound feature (stepsounds changed if you were stepping stone, wood, leaves, snow…). I hope I'll have the patience now. Because after so much hype, there's no way I'll willingly wait more months to play a more polished Cyberpunk!

Here is a bug-compilation. These reviewers too are confused about how much the day 1 patch will fix. No-one seems to know atm.

https://www.pcgamer.com/how-buggy-is…k-2077-really/

Yikes! Well I will definitely wait a week or two and see if it gets much better.

Originally Posted by largh
Here is a bug-compilation. These reviewers too are confused about how much the day 1 patch will fix. No-one seems to know atm.

https://www.pcgamer.com/how-buggy-is…k-2077-really/

God dammit I hate that site but damn I knew it would be buggy as hell.

Hopefully nothing game breaking happens when I play it. Yes we know they didn't get the day one patch, but even that probably wouldn't fix everything that's wrong.

I'm not too worried about the bugs. The bug list might seem long, but you have to keep in mind the size and complexity of the game. Skyrim had more bugs than could even be tracked when it was released but that didn't stop people from enjoying it.

Originally Posted by Couchpotato
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.

Thanks, that means I should be able to run it at High or so on 1080p

PC Gamer is a meme these days…

YongYea is a reasonable guy. I watched his review, and he seemed quite impressed, though he ran into plenty of bugs, too.

He said the main quest in his game, with a few side quests done but a focus on the main quest to finish his review on time, was about 35 hours. Said he was talking with another reviewer he knows who was being more of a completionist and that guy estimated the length at 50-55 hours with the side quests.

Sounds long enough to me. For me, it's more important that the world be a place I want to spend my time in. The story isn't so important. I'd probably place it 3rd after atmosphere and mechanics.

Originally Posted by largh
Here is a bug-compilation. These reviewers too are confused about how much the day 1 patch will fix. No-one seems to know atm.

https://www.pcgamer.com/how-buggy-is…k-2077-really/

PCGamer said they base their review on day1 patch and they received it.
I said they don't have it.
Noone believes me, everyone believes PCG.

YongYea was also quite open about the context of his review, which is one of the things I like about him. He pointed out he was playing on what they have dubbed the "Day Zero" patch. This is one they apparently rushed out to reviewers, because they know what the state of their game is. CD Projekt also didn't allow reviewers to show any video from their own games on this Day Zero patch, so he couldn't show any of the bugs.

Reviewers were only allowed to show video from official trailers. They are allowed to show video from the Day 1 patch, which is apparently some monster we regular gamers will be getting pretty much at launch. Of course, that doesn't allow a reviewer to actually show you the buggy game they are actually reviewing, which is what CD Projekt decided to go gold with.

So, CD Projekt managed to muscle reviewers into not actually showing the game they were reviewing. I hope this doesn't become a trend. If you're so worried about the bugs, try fixing them. It's not like you guys are some indie startup these days.

"So, CD Projekt managed to muscle reviewers into not actually showing the game they were reviewing."

But the game they're reviewing isn't the game we'll be playing. The problem was the quick turnaround. It's not relevant to see a review showing a bunch of bugs I may never experience. The ideal situation would have been to have those fixes ready 2-3 weeks ago so reviewers would a) have time to play the game somewhat naturally and b) be playing the same version as customers. But that wasn't going to happen with the delays and the need/desire to get it out by Christmas.

I can understand those who prefer to pass for now. Me, my excitement for the game far outweighs my fear of bugs. But I do hope the day 1 patch takes care of a good number of the issues.

Originally Posted by joxer
PCGamer said they base their review on day1 patch and they received it.
I said they don't have it.
Noone believes me, everyone believes PCG.

PC Gamer is confused. Every other outlet that has mentioned this, and CDPR themselves, has said there is a day 1 patch that was not included in any review code that has been sent out.

Originally Posted by JFarrell71
PC Gamer is confused. Every other outlet that has mentioned this, and CDPR themselves, has said there is a day 1 patch that was not included in any review code that has been sent out.

Here's what they write about it:

We received a 50GB patch during our review period. CDPR referred to this patch as the Day 0 patch. When asked for clarification whether the patch will be what players were receiving at launch, a CDPR representative told us that the Day 0 patch is what people will be experiencing on launch day. It is the Day 1 patch, only different in name. More fixes will be rolled into the Day 0 (Day 1) patch, but we cannot specify exactly what.

Originally Posted by Capt. Huggy Face
Reviewers were only allowed to show video from official trailers.

The reason for that is that the content embargo expires tomorrow. In other words, tomorrow the reviewers will be allowed to add their shots/videos from the game in their already existing reviews. A weird decision indeed to have these two embargos at different times. Would have thought that the review embargo tomorrow with content embargo would have been a better way to do it.

Originally Posted by JFarrell71
"So, CD Projekt managed to muscle reviewers into not actually showing the game they were reviewing."

But the game they're reviewing isn't the game we'll be playing. The problem was the quick turnaround. It's not relevant to see a review showing a bunch of bugs I may never experience. The ideal situation would have been to have those fixes ready 2-3 weeks ago so reviewers would a) have time to play the game somewhat naturally and b) be playing the same version as customers. But that wasn't going to happen with the delays and the need/desire to get it out by Christmas.

Which is a situation of their own creation. I'll take reality over censorship or a salesman's pitch about how the best is yet to come every damn day and twice on Sunday.

And, yes, I'd guess PC Gamer is confused in their patch terminology, a potentially confusing situation also of CD Prjoekt's creation.