The game was great for from day one.I can’t recall any significant issues. The Xbox one and PS4 stuff was dumb as all hell and shouldn’t have happened but everyone overreacted on the rest.
After they lied that their first major DLC will be free. I’m happy to wait till Phantom Liberty is 50% off or more. Not going to forget it’s launch. Review embargoes. Last gen performance. B roll footage forced into reviews to hide all the bugs.
@CyberpunkGame Will the game have Free dlc like your big brother @witchergame?
They released a bonus pack for free, so I’m not sure why it was complaining. They were never going to release a massive DLC like phantom liberty for free.
One of the few games I don't regret buying before release was Baldur's Gate 3 but that's an anomaly. Most games I'm happy to wait a year or more when it's in better shape.
Even with BG3, act 3 of the game is in much better shape than it launched with.
And their history of making "definitive" editions is looming a year or two down the road.
Oddly, as is their gameplay style of act 3 being the buggiest and least directed along with artificial difficulty of grouping the party in a tight clump via cutscene before the hard fights.
Still an utterly fantastic game despite those minor gripes.
Any game that has to release endings in patches means it wasn’t released as a complete product. BG3 is great, but it is so hypocritical that other games get dragged through mud for bad launches, but BG3 is getting nothing but praise despite releasing incomplete and full of bugs. I can forgive some stuff, but this hypocrisy and inconsistentcy in the gaming community bothers me to no end.
It’s funny that you mention Baldur’s Gate 3 because the game is blatantly unfinished. Act 1&2 are pretty much 9-10/10 but Act 3 is like a 6/10 at best. I’m surprised it gets a pass where Cyberpunk didn’t because in my experience they are equally as buggy. Because of my beefy PC and the scope of the games I think Cyberpunk may have even had less bugs than I’ve had in BG3. And I played it on release.
In BG3 I have quests breaking, characters not showing up where they should, continuity issues, obvious cut content, etc. I just gave up halfway through Act 3 and started a new playthrough instead because I adore the first half of the game and it makes the latter half that much more disappointing by contrast.
I agree. I have had major show-stopping bugs with main story quests in Act 3 and more crashes on the PS5 than I have experienced in any game by a huge margin. I love the game but it has been buggier than CP2077 for me as well.
You get "Larianed" a lot in BG3 just like you did in DOS2, plenty of inconsistencies, annoying pathing and quirks that make you wonder if they even played their own game before releasing it. But to put it in the same vein as cyberpunk 2077 is kind of disgusting. CDPR completely lied about the product, it barely ran on most PCs and didn't even function on consoles.
BG3 while far from perfect, is much more of a game than cp2077 will probably ever be and Larian are firing out patches left and right at the moment while CDPR are still forbidding reviewers to even use their own game footage.
Baldurs Gate 3 will go down as one of the greats. Cyberpunk 2077 will be forgotton about.
I am talking strictly on the basis of bugs/incompleteness not the overall quality/scope of the games. But also “it barely ran on PCs” neither did Act 3. I have a 7950X and I still drop down to 40fps in some places even after the patches. People with say a 3600X were barely scraping 30. If we’re talking about the trend of games being unfinished or buggy on launch then BG3 deserves to be called out for the same.
On just bugs I still disagree that it's anywhere near cp2077, but yeah there is a trend of games being buggy on launch and that defo has to be called out, especially when it's bugs that most people come across that are not even niche or very specific. Performance in act 3 still has a long way to go yeah, luckily it's not a fast paced game or a... shooter, so it's not the end of the world, but not very pleasant either.
I'm surprised I don't hear more people talk about this, maybe because they seemed to strategically handle bugs and content more thoroughly in the early game so that a lot of players would gush about that and be more forgiving by the time they got to act 3, along with everyone who didn't even make it that far and only praised it online instead.
Starfield gets dragged through the mud for both deserved and undeserved reasons, almost universally without nuance, and BG3 gets blanket praise and acclaim, almost universally without nuance, and then I see this comment thread where there are apparently some serious issues grouped within a specific portion of the game and I'm not sure if that's better or not.
Part of it is the game just being so huge. Most people aren’t even going to hit Act 3 until 50-60 hours in which is already much longer than most other games. So you’ve already formed your opinion of the game by the time you hit the less polished part.
And to be fair, those first 50-60 hours are pretty great. (Minus some gripes with things like pathing and inventory management) If the game just straight up ended with Act 2 I would be completely satisfied. I didn’t even mention this because I wanted to focus on the bugs but even narrative, pacing, and quest design in Act 3 is just so rough compared to the other two. It almost feels like a different game or a different developer. The quality drop is that drastic IMO.
I am worried that other studios might look at this and realize they can just front-load the best content and all the polish in the first section and neglect the rest to fix later. It sets a bad precedent.
Indeed, that's the worry. It sometimes seems like AAA game development is learning just how far you can push the average gamer and still get good word of mouth online by way of leaving choice aspects incomplete and compromised
MMOs have been front loading the best content since at least Conan. Remember that one, the first zone had amazing quests and voice acting that the rest of the game didn't.
Cyberpunk for me was not as buggy as for my friends. I find that a lot of the games I play on release aren't as buggy for whatever reason. It could be my AMD setup. It could be that I'm on Linux and use Proton or sheer goddamn luck. Callisto Protocol was fine for me but I've seen so many videos of the game running terribly and some crazy bugs.
The biggest problem with Cyberpunk was the performance. It ran horribly. The bugs were just the icing. My issues with Cyberpunk was that it felt hollow and lifeless. I loved everything about it but it just didn't feel like it had a soul.
My PC wasn't as beefy as it is now when Cyberpunk released so I felt that pain. I'm still on Act 1 on BG3 (because I insist on exploring everywhere) but I see that it has a huge amount of polish put into it. It makes sense that the earlier parts got more attention because that's what the majority of the players will experience. At the rate I'm going, Act 3 will be in great shape.
I agree completely. I’m even very forgiving when it comes to bugs and performance - especially when it’s a studio I trust will address them - but the huge swaths of obviously cut content combined with the way the story wraps up really gets to me and left me massively disappointed. I too still love the game for the gameplay and Act 1 and 2, but it really didn’t stick the landing in my opinion.
Even just things like the reactivity of your companions stands out; in Act 1 you could barely sneeze without everyone at camp chiming in with a comment about what just happened while in Act 3 you’ll do massively impactful things in both main story and companion quests and be greeted by the standard “Well met” or “hello soldier” at camp.
And that’s not getting into whatever scraps of the stated 17k different endings actually ended up not getting cut or the sorry state or the epilogues. Not even all companions get one!
Baldur’s Gate 3 is great at story and choices, which I think is where a lot of praise comes from. But it has a lot of really questionable issues with smaller mechanics.
The one I’m hating the most is how NPCs react to many summons and wild shape. Having a wild shaped party member makes most NPCs run away screaming, which is very painful in the NPC heavy areas of act 3 and basically discouraged you from even using wild shape or summon elemental, even though those are both incredibly powerful. You can dismiss the summon/wild shape, but it uses resources, so it sucks to do so. People have reported the bug for months but it doesn’t seem on the devs radar (they purposefully made NPCs run away – it’s a “feature”).
And just the other day, I discovered weirdness with warlock spell slots. Something about having used an elixer that gives me an extra spell slot (and then having consumed the spell slot) was preventing me from casting certain warlock spells (I think those of the spell slot’s level) because it claimed it needed that spell slot, even though I had higher level warlock spell slots. So a bunch of my spells couldn’t be used! When I searched, I found many reports about similar issues when people multi classed.
I maybe be wrong but I think they just fixed the NPCs running away in the latest patch. One of the patch notes is, “NPCs will no longer run away from anything but the Dark Urge Slayer form to improve interactivity and flow.” I’m not sure if that is referring to Dark Urge only or if that means they exclusively run away from that one form and now all other summons are fair game. But I haven’t had time to jump back into the game to try it yet.
There is actually a quest where you need to escort an NPC and when we got to the boss the NPC cowers in fear and tries to run away. But because I had an elemental summoned he would run towards the boss and instantly die. At first I just thought that was how it was supposed to be but after defeating the boss 3 times I thought it was way too hard to keep the NPC alive and it didn’t really make any sense for him to run straight in after dialogue saying he doesn’t want to go in there. The quest/dialogue also acted like he was still alive so it’s as if the developers never even planned for the possibility of him dying in that area. On my 4th attempt I moved the elemental in front of the door and sure enough he ran the opposite direction and stood in the corner he was supposed to, safe from the fight.
Yes! Can confirm it’s fixed. It’s great and revitalized my interest in using certain characters. I had almost sworn off some characters because of the bug and now they’re back on the menu.
Druids are insane. Owlbear does utter bonkers damage. Far beyond what I could do with any other character (I can’t tell if that means I built my other classes wrong). Only downside is that druids feel super limited. Usually to just melee attacks with no items and most equipment doesn’t even do anything (there’s little reason to ever purposefully revert to your original form, since you’d just eat a wild shape charge).
I love BG3, but agree that it deserves some criticism for act 3 bugginess. Just remember Bethesda basically forced them to release a month early when they announced starfield was coming out on the same weekend.
They wouldn’t have nearly as many problems as they did if they waited another 6 months for the initial release. I have a pc with a 1060 card, and I bought it relatively soon after launch, and it was extremely buggy, and I could barely play even at low settings. I made it maybe a 1/3 into the game before I just gave up and decided to wait until it was improved. I just installed again last week and started another play through, and even pre-2.0 it was markedly better and I could get a consistent 30+ fps on medium.
That’s I think the issue. 2.0 obviously contains many more bug fixes, but that’s not really what that release is about and it’s been past just playable for a long time. I actually really like the idea of 2.0, which is not really a bug fix but rethink of some gameplay mechanics that make a lot of sense. Like, it was always infuriating that the best armored clothes in the game often looked absolutely stupid, so I like them making clothing pretty much just cosmetic, and then moving armor to the ripperdoc upgrades. Sure, they could have probably figured that out for 1.0, but once things get into player hands you are always going to learn something. Conversely, Skryim has shipped on every platform with a screen practically and ships every time with the same garbage ass inventory system from 2011.
So yeah, they (the whole industry) should be releasing games that are fully baked, but I really don’t mind the idea that they’re going to take a game and iterate on it more like a platform. I could see Cyberpunk being something I’m still playing in 10 years as long as they keep adding content and iterating, in much the same way that people are still playing the shit out of GTAV.
Okay, but you being able to eek out fun from it doesnt fundamentally change the fact that it was a buggy, broken, amputated mess that was released 2 years too early.
This revisionism is quite tiring but I guess that the development companies are counting on it.
The problem with Cyberpunk was not “just bugs” but a 40 minutes video that tells lots of lies and was clearly stated as “fake” to drive up the hype for it.
What you see today was shown as if “ready” 4 years ago. And today we still can’t see the hacking as shown in that video.
On top of that there are all the design decision that are simply terrible but no amount of patches will fix, like the looter shooter approach to loot, levels on enemies, etc etc.
Overall, it’s not a matter of “realistic expectations”. We were lied to and that’s just it.
Starfield is the latest example, While not as crashy/ buggy as Cyberpunk was… You can see the lack of finish, the amputated systems, etc etc, that scream that it is a half finished mess, just like Cyberpunk, and was shoved out the door way too early, just like Cyberpunk.
It was a very different experience for me. I had a blast playing this game when first released and didn’t find any game breaking moment. This could be due to me playing on PC? So with the latest patch I loaded up my V and found noting of merit had changed. Seriously I found it to be the same game with small UI and Skill changes. I was shocked to say the least, due to the enormous patch size. I still haven’t left training NC so I might find more changes but so far it’s still an enjoyable game.
Well you got here by waiting 3 years to play a game that was perfectly fine about a month post-launch.
As someone who played on launch, with less than “best” specs - it was fine. I had the odd T-posing NPC or texture flicker, but I had decent frames almost everywhere and had a blast with a great game.
This is the new narrative for Cyberpunk 2077. I’m guessing cdprojekt greased some palms ahead of the new DLC release.
But make no mistake, and don’t fall for it; cyberpunk is still a wholly buggy and unfinished game with extremely janky mechanics that will never be patched out.
If and only if you can overlook such issues, and I know from personal experience some can, should you consider paying for the new DLC.
It was a great game at launch, and it’s an even better game now. It runs like butter. Choose to not play for whatever reasons you have, but it is still a great game.
I’d like to disagree. Even if you disregard all the bugs I had and content/features that was promised and never included, CP 2077 was maybe a good game in 2020. I didn’t think it was great by any means.
With realistic expectations, the game has always been a good experience, imo of course. I did not follow any coverage of the game until after release, so I wasn’t sure of what to expect. I’m not excusing their shortcomings, but I feel like the community leaned hard into the “bad game circlejerk” as soon as it came out. I played once at release and got the worst ending. After edgerunners, I played it through three times, the last of which on very hard and with all the endings earned.
I enjoyed it! The 2.0 update is an interesting shakeup. I’m playing through a 4th time and having a good time
I did get all the hype but after a lifetime of experience working in live performance marketing and software marketing, my position is that all marketing is a lie, and with limited experience in journalistic criticism, that too is as subjective as whether you prefer chocolate or strawberry ice cream.
in the end you experience something — regardless of the overall quality, some parts are better than others. And that’s it. That’s experience. Sometimes you love it, sometimes you don’t. Your fave is someone else’s least and vice versa.
That’s wanted by the marketing team tho. Hype creates profit, regardless how shit your product is. There is a reason why the Diablo 4 Facebook ad says “the fastest selling ARPG ever” instead of something tangently related to gameplay. It’s banking on hype sales, product comes second. They need to rake in quick profits to appease their shareholders.
Social media has conditioned people into swarm thinking and instant gratification instead of introspection and reflected decisions. Nobody gives a fuck about long-term consequences anymore. It’s sickening.
Going by the journalistic coverage of the game, yes. If you played on an XB1 or PS4, yes. I’m fortunate to have played it on a competent (not insane) PC and had little to no issues. It wasn’t bug-free, but the issues I encountered were minor and didn’t really bog down the experience tbh
I do and aside from one serious bug that made me start over I had a good time with it, I think summer 2020. I didn’t finish my first playthrough and am waiting for it to install so I can start #2.
Elon is literally everything Cyberpunk warns is about. He's the biggest corpocunt the world has ever seen. Arasaka is exactly what Elon wants X Corp to be. He's actually trying to make chips that get implanted into your brain. He wants his own Relic. He wants to be the immortal Saburo Arasaka.
It’s weird - when I played at launch, I had precisely one bug that impacted my gameplay. Other than that, the game ran pretty smooth and was a joy to play.
Now mind you, I was playing on a PC with a Xeon, 64GB of RAM, and an RTX 2080ti. Nothing ram badly on that system three years ago. Nowadays the older CPU, slower RAM and admittedly older GPU without all the newest bells and whistles (DLSS Framegen I’m looking at you) can’t quite measure up to the latest titles.
Cyberpunk, at launch, was great. For me. Specifically for me. I loved it and still do. But this article hits a point for me that I’ve been struggling to find reason to write about without feeling like I’m ignoring people who primarily play on consoles or can’t afford a nice PC. Regardless…
Man it fuckin’ sucks how you can spend a huge amount of money on a new GPU and then four months later a new one comes out that blows it out of the water. New hardware is so much better and - because all the game devs are using that hardware to design their games both on and for - systems like mine that are still fairly new can’t run the latest games at high settings anymore.
It used to be that if you ponied up the money for a high-end rig, you could expect decent performance for years to come. But I guess blowing a grand on a GPU these days just means you’ll be doing it again in a year or something, instead of the decade or so before.
I’m not saying my PC is bad. Most of what I play runs excellently. But when I spend a grand on just a GPU I expect that GPU to run the newest games at high settings for a long time. Jedi Survivor, Starfield, both run like crap on my system. Never mind the 2TB NVMe drive everything’s installed on.
I had a similar "it's great I don't get what people are talking about" experience, only I was running it on lesser hardware than yours: 4GB GTX 970, 12-core i7-5820k, 32GB ram. I ran into a handful of bugs that were funny but not really disruptive (e.g. some dude's corpse floating behind a car as I was on the highway) and otherwise had a blast.
Nonetheless, it didn't really feel finished, y'know? That part wore on me, and I think is what undermined my enjoyment the most. It really was released too early.
Ran it on a 980ti, i7 4770k, 32GB ram at release. It certainly struggled at parts, but overall decent experience. And that was a pretty outdated rig at that point.
People just threw a tantrum. There were fewer serious bugs than Skyrim, which got all around glowing reviews. People have claimed the hype was why their expectations were so high, but as someone who wasn’t even planning on playing it for a couple years until it was gifted to me, it was a decent game that had some areas of obvious improvement. Definitely a worthy first attempt at a GTA kind of game, and its a damn shame the gaming community chose it to be the meme pinata for the year.
Nonetheless, it didn’t really feel finished, y’know? That part wore on me, and I think is what undermined my enjoyment the most. It really was released too early.
The performance issues seem to be what every article and blog post focuses on because it’s the easy thing to talk about, but I think this right here is what the actual biggest issue was and the real reason people shat on the game.
I didn’t hate it by any means. And I, like you, ran it without issue. I just sort of lost interest because it was janky and super unpolished. Like I was playing an early access game. It wasn’t big bugs as in the game breaking and not running. It was just lots of little annoyance that felt unfinished or half conceived, or like they didn’t undergo full play testing.
The massive performance issues experienced by some just compounded those issues that existed even when it did run perfectly well.
This was totally out for me. It ran ok on my setup, but it was a shit game. It randomly generated traffic when you turned your back. AI for NPCs was often barely functional. Numerous build options seemed either broken or just untested. Itemization was boring and poorly balanced. Vehicles handled like crap in a game with a car collecting activity. The crime system was so undeveloped it felt like it was a joke from the Devs with police spawning in a bowl of rice to bust a cap.
Anyways, I played about 20 hours and realized the game wasn’t finished or feature complete, and absolutely wasn’t what had been advertised. I refunded, but I’m watching feedback now and may buy again if the game is closer to it’s original sales pitch.
My experience with people who have played Cyberpunk is being told that if I don’t expect it to be the game they advertised it was going to be, that its great.
If I remember correctly, it got hyped as the procedural generation not following the usual formulaic approach, where ‘new’ species are created by just propping tusk C onto body shape F etc…
Hype is literally the only thing you miss out on by not playing games on release. If you get used to existing 3 years behind the release schedule, your gaming experience is vastly improved.
pcgamer.com
Aktywne