Well it must have worked. All I heard for months when it came out was how bad everything about it was, then I finally got it myself and it quickly became one of the top favorite games of my life. Sorry for everyone who had a bad experience because I loved it so much.
I thought it was okay. It fizzled out pretty quickly for me as it felt half-baked and overly "gamey", which kept breaking the immersion illusion for me. I never did finish it. But I started over when Phantom Liberty dropped last week and it feels soooo much better. The immersion doesn't feel like it's being killed by a thousand cuts... everything feels more natural and believable now. It still has it's gamey moments, but they are a lot less obvious now.
I’m playing for the first time, amd my only real gripe is I wish the gorgeous cyberpunk world were more like Yakuza, with a million random minigames. Other than that, it’s been a blast.
The main story was pretty good, especially the Panam ending, which should have been the successor to Fallout: NV imo. Easily could have been it’s own game, excellent, 8/10.
I picked it back up in the post game after the skill tree rebalance and tried to get the highest heat level possible with the cars with guns on them, but the police kept getting lost, which decreased my heat level. Max tac couldn’t find me in a big intersection. I dejectedly uninstalled the game and decided to play something else. The red engine just can’t handle hazard level 5 interactions that well :/
I also played a quest, but it was just a “find a dead body” radiant quest for which I got about $2,500. I want more main storyline and less paper mache missions. The art direction and main storyline(s) are strong, but everything else feels really mushy to me. Witcher 3 was pretty solid all the way through.
When the game first came out you could walk around the corner to hide from the police. And none of the NPCs knew where any of the roads were, so they were just scrape along the side of building for no reason at all.
Yes and no. The AI is significantly better… but it’s still not great. Case in point: cops will chase you now, but it doesn’t take long to get a feel for how to fudge their pathing and lose them.
I played it on PC at launch and thoroughly enjoyed it. They’ve completely redone the skill tree system and reworked a ton of the weapons/clothing/cyber gear. It’s different now, but the story and core gameplay are still very much the same. I’m replaying it for the DLC and having a great time.
Someone told me this a week ago and I think it's a perfect summary of what happened:
disliking cyberpunk is an opinion people who don't form opinions have. I'm sure there are people who had glaring technical issues ruin their playthrough and that's fair. But for most of them it's just a fear of clowns/ hatred of pineapple pizza mouth sound they can make.
I agree only a little. The game got more flak than it deserved. It was mostly a good game.
BUT CDPR brought this on themselves by building up massive hype with excessive promises they in the end were not able to deliver on. In addition they stubbornly tried to get a next gen game on last gen consoles which also failed hard.
I think a lot of the stuff that went wrong was management and marketing related and could have been avoided.
It was a literal slideshow on past gen consoles and they knew that so they tried to prevent reviewers from warning people. Then happily took full price from consumers for it.
Literally no amount of flak would be enough for that shady shit.
I had it at launch on ps4 and I enjoyed it for the most part. I just endured the low frame rate because it was near the end of the ps4 life cycle and it seemed every game coming out for ps4 at the time had a shitty frame rate, so I never considered it an issue unique to Cyberpunk.
Any product that releases in such a poor state and expects full price definitely deserves the hate. The game was unplayable on half the platforms it released on for months.
Nah, it wasn't removed for technical reasons; Sony removed it because CDPR went behind their back and blanket-offered refunds. Which was the right thing for CDPR to do from a consumer-friendly perspective and from a PR perspective, but they should have communicated with Sony more first seeing as refunds on PlayStation go through Sony's store. I thought it was a bad look for Sony, though, personally.
That's not to excuse Cyberpunk 2077's performance on consoles in any way - they deserve flak for that.
CD Projekt announced on October 5 that the expansion starring Idris Elba cost a hefty 275 million Polish Zloty (around $62.7 million) to develop and approximately 95 million Polish Zloty (around $21.6 million) to market.
I’m not saying repairing and adding missing functionality isn’t a good size portion of that cost, but calling it a $125 million cost based on the cost of the expansion and marketing which were already planned regardless of how well the initial release did is miss-leading at best.
Yeah this headline should really just say the ~$41m they actually spent improving the game because that’s still an incredibly impressive number (2/3 the amount of a full expansion). I hate when there’s a good story to tell but they want to make it look even better so they decide to mislead instead of just saying the actually impressive thing
They are RPG kings but still haven’t got the nuances of perfecting an FPS down yet.
Cyberpunk is way too noisy in its visuals and sound. Even if you love it you’ll get a headache if you play it more then a couple of hours. Had it been in third person the noise would have probably been more bearable and even a good immersion feature, but in first person it makes you giddy.
I’ve loved the cyberpunk genre since its inception, and loved Witcher 3, but skipped this game because I don’t like vomiting. Some of us just can’t play FPS games without terrible nausea, especially when they have a field of view that can’t be zoomed out very far.
surely Edgerunners isn’t fair to count toward that? That was already in the works before launch, it’s not as though they had a bad launch and thought “wow we should do an animated series to repair reputation”
Pre release I was so hyped for cyberpunk, was patient and waited for reviews, so voted with my wallet and didn’t buy it, and just forgot it even existed
Watched Edgerunners animated series off the cuff and it had no business being as good as it was (same as Arcane - gj netflix)
The next time it went on sale I snapped it up and havent regretted it one bit. One playthrough on my old hardware, obligitory playthrough to test after I got an Rtx, and another now 2.0 is out - definitely got my moneys worth
A lot of the hate was undeserved, IMO. Besides one absolutely hilarious bug where I called my ride in an odd place, and another where part of a mission didn’t trigger so I had to reload the last Autosave which was about 30 seconds back, the game ran well for me and a lot of friends at launch. And CDPR responded quickly and had patches out within a week fixing most of the gameplay affecting bugs.
I typically judge games pretty harshly, and my only experience with CDPR prior was Witcher 3, which dropped with some bugs but was patched within a week, and really didn’t understand the level of shade CDPR received.
I had a midrange PC at the time, and only encountered a handful of bugs my first play through.
Performance could be rough in downtown sections, but it’s was far from unplayable on day one.
I am firmly convinced that most of the people experiencing horrible performance or mystifying bugs were attempting to play the game on their smart fridge or something. If you had a decent gaming machine from the last 7 years or so, the game ran fine.
That being said, it should have never released on Xbox one or PS4. Those consoles were just too old and the performance wasn’t their.
A lot of the problems and stupid glitches people had were from playing off of a hard drive. The game really needs flash storage, even if it’s SATA. That should’ve been a recommendation from the start, if not an outright requirement like it is now with 2.0.
I think the console releases were largely to blame for the bad rep. Esp the older gen ones. I played from launch on PC and I had a lot of bugs but nothing game breaking and it didn’t stop me from thoroughly enjoying myself.
I think it really worked to pull the player in and immerse them into conversations and show off the insane facial animation tech that is JALI, but yeah an option would be nice.
Probably could have spent less if it was given more time to bake, glad they invested it though 2.0 really brought the game closer to where it needed to be. Still not what was promised back in 2018, but it’s playable and enjoyable enough now.
I wonder if they would have saved a ton of money getting it closer to this product prior to release, or if it would have taken the same amount of time and money regardless and just maybe saved their reputation a bit?
Yes. As much as I have loved this game from day 1 (yes, day 1), the lack of 3rd person option did irk me quite a bit.
Honestly I probably would have played 1st person the majority of the time, but the option to zoom out the camera and just watch my badass highly customizable character move around and interact with Night City would have been a very very nice addition to the game.
Ultimately, I think they just had to scrap to focus on other (probably less technically challenging) aspects of the game’s development.
The fact that they made an exception for this with the vehicles (now with combat as of version 2.0) points to the high probability they knew that 1st person throughout the entire game was probably gonna lose them some fanfare, so at least in the vehicles (especially the motorcycles), you can zoom out and see your customized V in all their glory.
I think something like what modern Deus Ex games had is a perfect balance of 1st and 3rd person camera. Most of the exploration, sneaking and shooting is first person but whenever you enter cover or shimmy along the walls, you get a 3rd person camera so you can see and aim better. It's both practical and immersive IMHO. Takedowns were kinda bad since it took you into a basically cutscene every time but if done differently, more seamlessly, i'd be a good fit for cp2077.
Also I wouldn't mind 1st person camera in vehicles at all if it was actually good, but it feels like I'm driving from the back seat, FOV was just terrible. And that's coming from someone who enjoyed doing GTAV heists in first person mode...
I respect your opinion, but I disagree. I much prefer an over the shoulder third person perspective to being a floating set of arms. Being able to see my character interact physically with the world and move around in it is more immersive to me, personally.
Just a few months into her employment, she says she was instructed to investigate the performance of a particular employee, referred to as “James Smith.” But when she sat down to speak with Smith, he allegedly pointed out that he was the only Black employee on a team of 50 individuals, and expressed that he felt he was being singled out and racially targeted by his supervisor.
Alm goes on to say that she shared this information with her supervisor and recommended that Smith’s supervisor receive diversity training, but alleges that her recommendation was met with “hostility and denial.”
So she just took the allegedly under performing employees word and recommended diversity training without any further investigation? I hope the article is leaving something out.
Did you read the rest of the article? It talks about how she talked with others in the company about this, someone above her took it very personally as suggesting he was racist, and her prompt firing. It also highlights how bungie was exposed for both racial and gender bias by reporting just a few months before she was hired, indicating that these exposed problems likely still existed.
I don’t mean any harm when I say this, but why would you jump to the defense of a company in the first place, dismissing claims of racism or other forms of bigotry? The world is incredibly biased, and regular large-scale studies on company culture (and social culture) reveal widespread bigotry in our world. Simply assuming the status quo absent enough evidence on either side to clearly paint a picture is more often than not correct. What purpose does trying to discredit her accomplish here? How do you think it makes black people feel to see the only reply in a thread is an attempt at discrediting her?
Did you read the rest of the article? It talks about how she talked with others in the company about this, someone above her took it very personally as suggesting he was racist, and her prompt firing. It also highlights how bungie was exposed for both racial and gender bias by reporting just a few months before she was hired, indicating that these exposed problems likely still existed.
Yes. Her superiors disagreed that the supervisor needed diversity training just because that one person who received a bad review said he was being racially targeted. The article doesn’t say that she made any attempt to talk to that Black employee’s immediately coworkers. She just talked to him and decided the supervisor needed diversity training. So it’s not surprising that her supervisors reacted critically.
I don’t mean any harm when I say this, but why would you jump to the defense of a company in the first place, dismissing claims of racism or other forms of bigotry? The world is incredibly biased, and regular large-scale studies on company culture (and social culture) reveal widespread bigotry in our world. Simply assuming the status quo absent enough evidence on either side to clearly paint a picture is more often than not correct. What purpose does trying to discredit her accomplish here? How do you think it makes black people feel to see the only reply in a thread is an attempt at discrediting her?
I’m not siding with the company. I’m siding with the employee who was treated like a racist because one person who may have been underperforming said he was without any further investigation. That’s ridiculous.
You seem to keep making a lot of assumptions about what happened, absent any evidence that it did. Why do you assume that she didn’t make ‘any attempt to talk to that Black employee’s immediate coworkers’? Why do you assume she ‘just talked to him’? Why do you assume there was no ‘further investigation’?
We don’t have any of this information. It’s not fair to assume anything about whether they happened or not. Why are you making all of your assumptions in the direction of discrediting this individual? The article that is linked here links another article exposing a pervasive issue of gender and racial bias at this company, so it seems rather odd to be assuming that they had completely fixed this issue by the time of her hiring, a mere few months later, and that it was not at play in this situation. However, even if this article was not linked and this company was not specifically exposed for these issues, it seems odd to me to assume in the direction that research on bigotry in the workplace also does not support.
Why do you feel compelled to jump to the defense of someone you do not know, over an accusation which doesn’t affect you and you have no stakes in nor any knowledge of the circumstances?
Just want to hop in and also point out the vastly different costs of being wrong in each case.
On one hand, we have a supervisor having to take a diversity course, and an employee getting a written warning about their performance. On the other hand, a person is losing their income and health insurance. If the evidence equally supported both sides and we had to guess, the detrimental effect of incorrectly supporting one side is vastly more significant than incorrectly supporting the other.
And that assumes a hypothetical where the evidence doesn’t support either side, something I do not think is the case. I think the article supplies enough information to support Alm’s case.
On one hand, we have a supervisor having to take a diversity course, and an employee getting a written warning about their performance. On the other hand, a person is losing their income and health insurance. If the evidence equally supported both sides and we had to guess, the detrimental effect of incorrectly supporting one side is vastly more significant than incorrectly supporting the other.
Yes, but don’t you get it? Someone might be getting called racist when they’re not, and that’s obviously the worst thing in the whole big wide world! And on top of that case, a black person will get to under perform in the workplace! Oh the humanity! Will no one think of the children?!?!?!
I for one am thankful we were born and raised in a society with no racial biases that could seep in to my work. Now, if you excuse me, I have to go back to writing up the only black person on my team for underperforming at the video game company with a history of racism and sexism B)
Notably, Alm was hired at Bungie just five months following an IGN report on the company’s work culture. In it, over 25 employees alleged the company had a history of allowing toxic culture to fester, including racial and gender bias, with those who reported such instances to HR alleging their reports were frequently dismissed or even turned against them. Following this report and prior to Alm’s hiring, Bungie’s former HR head stepped down from her role. IGN understands from its sources that following its 2021 report, Bungie also hired a number of new HR personnel in an effort to address the issues from the article, amid some pressure from its new parent company Sony.
All the best workplaces that don’t have a racism problem are the ones where lightly suggesting diversity training is met with hostility, denial, and sacking of the person suggesting it. Such actions really highlight how seriously said company takes concerns of bigotry at the workplace and proves they’re giving it their all to make it as inclusive as possible.
I’m siding with the employee who was treated like a racist
Proving how incredibly not racist I am by taking incredible, personal offense at the suggestion of checking possible biases I may have as manager at a company with a history of racial biases, because I care about combating racism just that much
I’m siding with the employee who was treated like a racist because one person who may have been underperforming said he was without any further investigation.
It’s so poignant that you tell on yourself with this statement.
When someone is hired to address discrimination and someone reports that they are still being discriminated against, I would hope that the person hired to address discrimination would assume the report of coninued discrimination is correct.
Assuming the best when that is crealy not the situation is just shoving your head in the sand.
I would hope that the person hired to address discrimination would assume the report of coninued discrimination is correct.
They should assume it’s true for the purpose of more investigation. Then decide if the facts support or disprove the claim. That’s much different than hearing it from one person, and then concluding that it’s true.
Note that they believed it enough to raise the concern to someone higher up and that person took the existence of the complaint personally. That is doing exactly what you said, taking the complaint seriously enough to look into it.
Not sure about other companies, but at the one I work at, recommending a training doesn’t mean a whole lot except “this might be relevant to your work”. For example, in this case an employee expressed concerns of being discriminated against, so it makes sense to recommend training on how to identify and address those kinds of problems (even if no such situation is actually occurring) so that you’re better prepared to handle it.
Yet another reason to avoid Activision Blizzard. It’s amazing to me how their corrupt and broken internal culture is apparently widespread throughout the company and their subsidiarys, and no one stopped to be like, “hol’ up, we can’t act like this” while the culture was taking form. So now you end up with people like the article trying to fight against it and getting doors shut in their face.
Also, it should be pretty easy to prove whether or not she resigned voluntarily. The resignation form would either be missing her signature or have a forged signature. Dunno what Activision Blizzard is doing trying to claim she resigned voluntarily.
Edit: I thought Bungie was still owned by Activision.
I had an employer try this on me too. I beat the claim in court by pointing out that people who quit don’t tend to bother showing up on time and ready to work at their next shift. Judge agreed with me. Shortly after I was offered about 80% of my claim as a settlement with the understanding that the taxes on the settlement would be paid by the company. Pretty good deal when I didn’t even have a lawyer ngl
I mean yeah ABK has toxic culture, but Bungie has been with Sony for over a year now (Aug 2022), and Alm was hired just few 2 months before Sony acquisition and the issues followed up until September with false termination.
ign.com
Aktywne