Why did cd projekt red shit? Poll. (Cyberpunk 2077)
1. There was not enough experience and talent;2. Not enough money
3. Not enough time
4. Deliberately did hack
5. Another reason
Derley
No, the pedmak was bad in everything except the main story, punk still takes out the graph)
Listoman
And there is some kind of stealth .. Yes, it is not really done, but it is. In the Witcher, they didn't give a damn about it, you fly stupidly under the buffs .. And, by the way, the closer the end, the more sadly it is played. But this is the problem of all games
Derley
Derley wrote:
One episode with the Baron is worth something - they say
In the episode with the Baron, the moral choice is hard: either the children or the Baron's wife. It seems to me that you did not play it. But what about the cemetery woman who devours children? And the Younger Bastard tortured Moreover, you don't know which of the female Persians it is better to leave Geralt with. After the main plot I really wanted Geralt to stay with Shani. + There is humor in the game, there are interesting and hilarious Persians
Derley wrote:
And there is some kind of stealth ..
Why does Geralt need stealth? Is it Skyrim or something? Or Fallout?
1. The world of the witcher and the world of cyberpunk are like 2 drops of water, stupid activities, a minimum of interactivity, poor physics, animations, the dumbest of the same type of NPCs (there everyone screamed and ran like idiots here). It was foolish to expect a revolution in the RPG genre with an open world, especially to compare it with the worlds of rockstar, in fact it is not even the level of wd legion or wd2 (if you approach the comparison without fanboy, you will easily come to the same opinion), their business is to write quests / stories and create an atmosphere, which in both cases +/- coped with
Che that ratings on metacritics are dumb. Critics below 90. And about 70 users. It's not bad, but definitely not a game of the decade.
Denis G
"How do you like such a powerful storyline like 7 monotonous bad endings and 0 good ones?"
Man, do not come up with - these are options for passing the final, not the ending. There are 3 or four endings there and one secret, but I will not count it. And only one has a bad ending. In the rest, it all depends on how you perceive him:
Spoiler In case V remains in the body, she is still alive. And in half a year she still has a chance to find some super programmer / ripper or anyone else. Freedom of imagination.
If V remains an engram, then her consciousness is also alive. Those. it is likely that her consciousness could be transplanted into another body. Again, freedom of fantasy
"RPG of the year or decade ?."
And again you invent something. Where is this RPG? This is an ordinary shooter, with RPG elements, like FarKray. Moreover, the developers themselves stated that it would not be the purest RPG. Or did you add the genre to the game purely to bomb out?
scanx wrote: Man
, do not come up with - these are options for passing the final, not the ending. There are 3 or four endings there and one secret, but I will not count it. And only one had a bad ending. In the rest, it all depends on how you perceive it:
Yes, that's right. There are only 3 endings in the end.
1. Vee dies.
2. Vee dies, his place is taken by the resurrected Johnny.
3. V dies in six months.
In terms of variety, these endings surpass even the incredibly variable ending of Mass Effect 3, but only if you play the latter on a black and white monitor.
MunchkiN 616 wrote:
formally, he merges into the dao, but in some cases he can survive and even close up so that everyone will survive those happy endings. Mass Effect 3 does not give a happy ending. because there were many dissatisfied and bombing that the game is bad. probably such an example of a plot does not work in pop games because the player feels like a loser and not because he played badly, but because the game does not provide such an opportunity.
A good ending is a natural desire of a player who spends tens of hours of his time and effort to achieve a result that suits him. He must know that his actions and choices, if any, lead somewhere. For stories with a "sad ending" there are films where nothing is required from the viewer and does not depend on, in games this approach does not work.
This is not even the point. YG in Tao can die in one of the finals, YG ME3 dies in almost all finals (and only in one it is questionable), but this is not even close to the CP2077 fiasco.
In Tao, he stops the pestilence (sometimes at the cost of his life), and ME3 he stops the galactic harvest (usually at the cost of his life). That is, he reaches his goal, tens of hours of effort were not in vain.
And only in cyberpunk, the main task of the game and the main story quest is not to save the world or someone else, but only to save and heal yourself. And after a hundred hours of grinding and monotonous empty activities, it turns out that, by definition, this cannot be done in the game. I repeat, so that you can feel the full depth of the failure - the main quest of the game is impassable. The plot of this story-driven game is broken and does not lead to a logical outcome, it ends with what is called game over in normal games and is punished with a save / checkpoint rollback. This makes the whole game a completely meaningless grind.
But there are more interesting games for grinding in the open world.
Denis G wrote:
Good ending
Don't confuse "good ending" and "happy ending aka happy ending", for even
Arasaki's Spoiler Mikoshi
is quite good. For it is beautifully spelled out, logical, poetic, etc.
With flowers, meadows and pink ponies take you to another universe.
Pressure from publishers, sponsors and fans of the game themselves (they warned that the game is still at the stage of finishing). Coronvirus with its remote mode (as I remember it was said that they were not so much affected by this, but I don't think so).
Alastor Crow
Once again, I don't need poetic endings in an RPG, how much do I need to explain?
I need adequate, logical endings that suit the player, corresponding to his actions. Behind snotty feigned dramas and infantile philosophy, you are in another genre and another area of ​​media.
The game has a plot, there is a plot, there is a goal that is set before the player. And in the final it turns out that it is impossible to achieve it. I don’t care why it’s like that, they didn’t have time to finish it or cut it out for some reason - absolutely all the same. The game does not have an adequate ending. And this is nonsense, and I do not remember such a draining of the plot in AAA projects in general in the whole history. There were happy ends, there were bad endings, there were some kind of gray finals, but such a shit that the game could not be completed - never.
I am not against games for losers, in principle, any perversion for your money. I am against the fact that this scam was for my money. If the developers immediately warned the players that no matter how you play, no matter what you do - but you won’t be able to win, you have already lost by buying the game - this would save money to the big people.
But instead, we have another advertising lie for the Poles that we ourselves will write history in this game. Just one more nonsense out of many that no one pays attention to.