Is cyberpunk 2077 too big? Failure imminent?

Is it too big and doomed for failure?

  • Total voters
    117
sharknice said:
Third person is less immersive by definition. It's no longer you, it's you watching a character. Immersion is the dumbest argument for third person.
Click to expand...
I find the term 'immersive' doesn't describe accurately the sense I get from games that absorb/engross me. A film or game can captivate me entirely in third person perspectives and I'm never more engaged with the world by seeing it in a first-person perspective as the aspects that I'm judging while playing are the quality of the environment and such that don't change in either perspective.

Neither do character dialog interactions make me feel more connected to an in-game world by being in first-person. In fact they can often distract given the limited ability for the playable character to emote in first-person during sequences where they're interacting with other characters (it nearly always comes across as unnatural since we don't see movements in that manner IRL).

With VR on the other hand it would be possible to more fully model such interactions and of course the actual immersion level would be inherently more natural. Otherwise I'm more fond of third-person with third-person dialog and cutscenes, as apart from affording designers more flexibility with animations and cutscenes it also helps those with even mild motion sickness.
 
polonyc2 said:
when Godfall has much higher system requirements you know something is wrong...
Click to expand...
Godfall is seemingly leveraging bleeding edge effects. But from what I've seen so far-----not necessarily enabling more complex and detailed art direction. So far it looks to be pretty basic arenas and corridoors, with heavy hitting effects processes covering them, for a decent overall look.

Cyberpunk seems to be making excellent use of now classic shader effects and methods. Sure, you can apply some of the new stuff on top. But the basis of the game is in pixel shaders and compute and raw geometry. And even a PS4 is pretty darn good at that stuff. I mean, it can't touch a modern console or GPU. But the point is that graphics and shader capabilities have been mature for a long time. And sometimes its cool when a game takes all of the modern power and just punches out a whole lot of the common stuff. It ends up looking really good, still.

A great example is MGS5. The first time they showed it off at E3, it was the PS3 version. and everyone was like OMG look how solid that looks.

I'm still waiting for more games to be as geometrically complex as Dark Souls 3. All of these new effects processes are cool I guess. But it doesn't impress me when its used on a bunch of squares.
 
Don't know about the game, but their tactics are a failure.

EoQHgS6XcAIjxeK.jpeg
 
Derangel said:
Thats fairly standard for single player games. Its understandable that they don't want people streaming early copies, especially as the leaked console versions are unpatched.
Click to expand...
I just hope it's not a DMCA threat thinly veiled in humor.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Parja
like this
If this game was the Witcher 4 it would do better. The problem with modern settings is believability.
 
With real life you gotta have that same experience when you go outside with a Fantasy setting it opens it up so you can Fudge the rules is all I'm saying.
It works with Comic Books if the art is done right and the story is good but in a Fantasy setting you have more room to give is all I'm saying.
 
Last edited:
Meeho said:
I just hope it's not a DMCA threat thinly veiled in humor.
Click to expand...
Strange hope that seem almost explicit, does anyone (outside streamer) have a big issue with a calm down the spoiler before december 9 or else threat ?
 
LukeTbk said:
Strange hope that seem almost explicit, does anyone (outside streamer) have a big issue with a calm down the spoiler before december 9 or else threat ?
Click to expand...
Well it's not like they said they're going to be filing lawsuits or anything, just taking down videos released before a specific date. Seems reasonable to me, and no different than the typical embargo one would see with hardware reviews.
 
Meeho said:
I just hope it's not a DMCA threat thinly veiled in humor.
Click to expand...
It is just that and they are 100% within their rights to do so.
This is exactly the situation to employ dmca takedowns.
 
The game will be so big and vast all you wanna do is go home and play it on your computer.
 
Jonnycat99 said:
Well it's not like they said they're going to be filing lawsuits or anything, just taking down videos released before a specific date. Seems reasonable to me, and no different than the typical embargo one would see with hardware reviews.
Click to expand...
I have no experience in this, but isn't exactly what a DCMA takedown is ? And what they are threatening to do here ?

A DMCA Takedown is:

When content is removed from a website at the request of the owner of the content or the owner of the copyright of the content. It is a well established, accepted, internet standard followed by website owners and internet service providers.

If the post implied something else, than forget my post I thought that exactly what the person was talking about.
 
I know someone who has been playing the game for about 4 days and has played about 40 hours. He doesn't have the day 1 patch and says the game does have a lot of bugs pre-patch. I asked he didn't spoil anything so our conversation was really short and he's pretty much been playing non-stop. But he says if the day 1 patch fixes all of the bugs it will be recieved very well and live up to the hype.
He also said the map is larger and easier to get lost in than a game like GTA5, he actually said Night City makes Los Santos feel small. He has also said that there is significantly more side activity than any similarly styled games and he said he feels he's not very far into the main story.

So I don't quite understand why theres so many people online saying the map is tiny. But we will see in a few days when the game is out, I can't wait.

edit: Also I'm not sure how much I trust the guy, I just want to make that clear, it's just some random person I know from GTA:O so take any of this lightly, the game could potentially just be trash lol
 
Last edited:
M76 said:
It is just that and they are 100% within their rights to do so.
This is exactly the situation to employ dmca takedowns.
Click to expand...
Really, a 100%? With overlays and commentary, it is a strong case for fair use.
 
LukeTbk said:
Strange hope that seem almost explicit, does anyone (outside streamer) have a big issue with a calm down the spoiler before december 9 or else threat ?
Click to expand...
I have an issue with companies overstepping their bounds and bullying fair usage.
 
Meeho said:
Really, a 100%? With overlays and commentary, it is a strong case for fair use.
Click to expand...

It's very much a legal grey area. There has never been a court case to determine if streaming, LPs, etc are count as fair use, especially in the case of single-player narrative focused games. It should also be noted that "transformative" is not the only qualifier for fair use. If a publisher wanted to argue against game streaming and the like in court I imagine there would a huge amount of debate over market cross-over and how streaming or LPing an entire game for an audience could negatively effect sales (note: I don't actually agree with this statement, just talking about a hypothetical argument that a publisher could make in a court case). Until there is a court ruling declaring game streaming and etc as fair use, it technically sit in a grey area where these things exist only as long as the publisher/developer allows it.
 
Meeho said:
Really, a 100%? With overlays and commentary, it is a strong case for fair use.
Click to expand...
Whoever got early access codes must've agreed to some terms. And if they got their hands on early access codes unintentionally without agreeing to terms, well then that speaks for itself.
 
Meeho said:
I have an issue with companies overstepping their bounds and bullying fair usage.
Click to expand...
The game release is the 10th, the non stream embargo end before that date, someone that would want to stream before the date release I doubt it would be because they learned and worked enough on a streaming content that it would be transformative (and that it would be an artistic endeavour) and they are not customer either.
 
M76 said:
Whoever got early access codes must've agreed to some terms. And if they got their hands on early access codes unintentionally without agreeing to terms, well then that speaks for itself.
Click to expand...
That's a contract breach and doesn't apply to anyone who streams.
 
Meeho said:
That's a contract breach and doesn't apply to anyone who streams.
Click to expand...
Who else it would apply to? The person that streams got the early access codes then they must have signed the contract, otherwise they wouldn't get early access codes. Unless they obtained them illegally in which case a DMCA takedown is even more prudent.
 
M76 said:
Who else it would apply to? The person that streams got the early access codes then they must have signed the contract, otherwise they wouldn't get early access codes. Unless they obtained them illegally in which case a DMCA takedown is even more prudent.
Click to expand...
To anyone who hadn't signed the contract, and even to those. That's not a DMCA issue either way. There are copies floating around, one doesn't have to be obtained illegally to be able to post videos today.
 
BTW I would love to see CDPR's fanboys' excuse for the restrictive TOS that reviewers have to sign. What a stand up company.
 
Meeho said:
BTW I would love to see CDPR's fanboys' excuse for the restrictive TOS that reviewers have to sign. What a stand up company.
Click to expand...

Ummm....NDAs are common for reviews. Highly specific ones are not remotely uncommon for single-player games.
 
Meeho said:
To anyone who hadn't signed the contract, and even to those. That's not a DMCA issue either way. There are copies floating around, one doesn't have to be obtained illegally to be able to post videos today.
Click to expand...
If you hadn't signed a contract and obtained the game early you are in the wrong either way even if you got it by mistake, but anyone who accidentally got sent a phyiscal copy early can't play it as it cannot be activated yet. So anyone who can stream early either has an early access review key that they signed an NDA for, or they are not the intended recipient of the key, simple as that. And that is exactly a DMCA issue, taking down material that you do not have the copyright holder's permission to publish. Just because game publishers let streamers stream doesn't mean they are not still the copyright holder. And they are within their rights to claim ownership of the content see nintendo. Your personal feelings are irrelevant in the matter.

Meeho said:
BTW I would love to see CDPR's fanboys' excuse for the restrictive TOS that reviewers have to sign. What a stand up company.
Click to expand...
The irony of accusing me of being a CDPR fanboy LOL.

Derangel said:
Ummm....NDAs are common for reviews. Highly specific ones are not remotely uncommon for single-player games.
Click to expand...

I haven't seen a major release in years that didn't have a reiview embargo, sometimes even restricting what you can say in a review. Let alone streaming the whole game to the internet.
 
M76 said:
If you hadn't signed a contract and obtained the game early you are in the wrong either way even if you got it by mistake, but anyone who accidentally got sent a phyiscal copy early can't play it as it cannot be activated yet. So anyone who can stream early either has an early access review key that they signed an NDA for, or they are not the intended recipient of the key, simple as that. And that is exactly a DMCA issue, taking down material that you do not have the copyright holder's permission to publish. Just because game publishers let streamers stream doesn't mean they are not still the copyright holder. And they are within their rights to claim ownership of the content see nintendo. Your personal feelings are irrelevant in the matter.
Click to expand...
Again, no. NDA breach and other problems regarding how one obtained the game can be related, but are separate from DMCA. And one under NDA but still releasing a video early is not in [automatically] a DMCA breach, but an NDA breach.
M76 said:
The irony of accusing me of being a CDPR fanboy LOL.
Click to expand...
Recognizing yourself as a target of that post is entirely on you.
 
Derangel said:
Ummm....NDAs are common for reviews. Highly specific ones are not remotely uncommon for single-player games.
Click to expand...
Of course they're not. I fully acknowledge and agree that CDPR is just part of the course of shitty game publishers when it comes to restricting what one is allowed to say and show in a review.

It also speaks volumes about tbe state of Cyberpunk 2077 and tells us that every early review is essentially worthless.
 
Last edited:
Meeho said:
Again, no. NDA breach and other problems regarding how one obtained the game can be related, but are separate from DMCA. And one under NDA but still releasing a video early is not in a DMCA breach, but an NDA breach.
Click to expand...
You don't seem to get the fact that game publishers are the owners of the content, they can take down let's plays and streams of games whenever they bloody please under DMCA regardless of any NDA. Of course under any other circmustances it would be unfair but still legal. In this case, anyone who wants to spoil the game early deserve everything they get.

Meeho said:
Recognizing yourself as a target of that post is entirely on you.
Click to expand...
Don't play games with me, you know exactly that you addressed everyone who "defends the restrictive TOS" so no, you targeted me. TOS is necessary exactly because of guys who have zero regard for everyone else and would go on forums to spoil games for everyone even before its release. Why do you think free for all would be a good thing? Early leaks can only result in disaster we have seen it enough times.
 
Meeho said:
Of course they're not. I fully acknowledge and agree that CDPR is just part of the course of shitty game publishers when it comes to restricting what one is allowed to say and show in a review.

It also speaks volumes about tbe state of Cyberpunk 2077 and tells us that every early review is essentially worthless.
Click to expand...

It really says nothing at all. An NDA saying “doing spoil these things” doesn’t prevent a reviewer from giving their opinion. Even if some of those specific elements are things a reviewer has a problem with, there are ways to talk about them without breaching the NDA. I think NDAs can sometimes go overboard with what they want avoided, but I don’t see it as anything to get too worked up over either.
 
M76 said:
You don't seem to get the fact that game publishers are the owners of the content, they can take down let's plays and streams of games whenever they bloody please under DMCA regardless of any NDA.
Click to expand...
You're wrong. DMCA is not a stick for one to use how they please when they are wronged anywhere else.

M76 said:
Don't play games with me, you know exactly that you addressed everyone who "defends the restrictive TOS" so no, you targeted me. TOS is necessary exactly because of guys who have zero regard for everyone else and would go on forums to spoil games for everyone even before its release. Why do you think free for all would be a good thing? Early leaks can only result in disaster we have seen it enough times.
Click to expand...
That was the first mention of review TOS and was a separate topic from DMCA takedowns, so it was physically impossible for you to say something about it and for it to refer to you. Restrictive TOS is about preventing reviewers from reporting on bugs and glitches. I would have no problem calling you out by name if I thought it concerned you. You need to relax.
 
Derangel said:
It really says nothing at all. An NDA saying “doing spoil these things” doesn’t prevent a reviewer from giving their opinion. Even if some of those specific elements are things a reviewer has a problem with, there are ways to talk about them without breaching the NDA. I think NDAs can sometimes go overboard with what they want avoided, but I don’t see it as anything to get too worked up over either.
Click to expand...
It's not about spoilers, it's about not being able to show bugs amd glitches, aka the complete state of the game as it is being reviewed aka making every early review closer to a PR fluff piece than an objective view.
 
Meeho said:
It's not about spoilers, it's about not being able to show bugs amd glitches, aka the complete state of the game as it is being reviewed aka making every early review closer to a PR fluff piece than an objective view.
Click to expand...

In the link you posted in the other thread, it seems like that relates to sponsored partnerships, not reviews. So instances where CDPR is paying people to make a video on the game or paying them to stream it. Sponsorships often include some really shitty terms like that. However, sponsored videos aren’t reviews. Review NDAs and sponsorship terms are two different things. All that aside: Partnerships like that are super shitty and overly restrictive and they happen way too often.
 
Derangel said:
In the link you posted in the other thread, it seems like that relates to sponsored partnerships, not reviews. So instances where CDPR is paying people to make a video on the game or paying them to stream it. Sponsorships often include some really shitty terms like that. However, sponsored videos aren’t reviews. Review NDAs and sponsorship terms are two different things. All that aside: Partnerships like that are super shitty and overly restrictive and they happen way too often.
Click to expand...
Yeah, you could be right. A "paid promotion" or similar disclosure should be present in that case.
 
Derangel said:
In the link you posted in the other thread, it seems like that relates to sponsored partnerships, not reviews. So instances where CDPR is paying people to make a video on the game or paying them to stream it. Sponsorships often include some really shitty terms like that. However, sponsored videos aren’t reviews. Review NDAs and sponsorship terms are two different things. All that aside: Partnerships like that are super shitty and overly restrictive and they happen way too often.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, it ended up being about reviews and CDPR is more and more becoming a shitty game publisher like the rest of them.

https://mobile.twitter.com/SkillUpYT/status/1335999301382639618

Screenshot_20201208-071701~01.jpg
 
Meeho said:
Unfortunately, it ended up being about reviews and CDPR is more and more becoming a shitty game publisher like the rest of them.

https://mobile.twitter.com/SkillUpYT/status/1335999301382639618

View attachment 306719
Click to expand...

While I'm not going to defend them refusing to allow footage in video reviews, this is still not what Razorfist was talking about in that clip. He was talking about people CDPR is paying/sponsoring not even being allowed to talk bad about the game and the like. This is shitty, but a different kind of shitty.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top