![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
I don't recall any really memorable side missions in this game. All of the yellow quests around the map are very forgettable outside of stuff connected to the main quest line. They provide marginal entertainment, but they don't come anywhere near some of the quests in Witcher 3, and/or those cool monster hunt quests.
I never played the Witcher 3. However, I do recall a few of the side quests and they can be memorable. There is one where a guy bought a cheap cybernetic penis upgrade that was recalled for safety reasons and you have to drive him to a ripper doc. The banter during the mission is hilarious. There are some others as well like the conspiracy involving the mayor's death and the guy running to replace him in an election. There is a whole mess of stuff surrounding that and all of it is outside the main quest lines.
You really ought to play it. The vast majority of optional content in Witcher 3 is as good as the main stuff, if not better.
I'm not into fantasy genre based games. I made it through the tutorial of Witcher 2 and by then I'd had enough of it.
No, just no. You have been trying to prove since the release of the game that it is not worth buying. Nobody is saying it is perfect, but that it was well worth a purchase even at full price. I've got more out of it than any other games I purchased in 2020. So saying it's only worth $30 or less is completely off the rails nonsense.
This really depended on how one approached the gameplay. I played it like a stealth game and could recognize the various side missions and parts of main missions that were designed for stealth first. Where the enemies were carefully positioned to be in line of sight of each other at specific intervals, leaving opportunities for taking out one by one (using distraction, quiet physical KOs, or hacking, which added some variety). Even the insta enemy alerts aren't all that different from other stealth action games (eg: MGSV, Dishonored).
For once, I think we generally agree on this game. The only thing I will disagree with is the point about value as it might not be worth full price or even $30 to some people. I think those people are unrealistic, but that's my opinion. I do agree that in terms of content and time to complete the game all the way through, it does provide a lot of value because there is roughly 120 hours of game there. That's a hell of a lot more than you get with most games. It does have some replay value, although not as much as it should.
He's not lying. It's an opinion. Frankly, it's one that many of us share. And yes, we can tell you whatever you want if you want to split hairs. That's literally a reviewer's job. I do it all the time. Hell, I get paid to do just that. Whether or not you want to listen is another matter entirely. Value is subjective, but as far as the industry goes, assigning value does seem to have some objective standards. By most of those objective standards (game length, quality, replayability and other factors) it's worth at least $30. Yes, the game is flawed and even utterly broken in some aspects. If you want to wait a few years for the Enhanced Edition that's your business, but by most objective standards its disingenuous to say the game isn't worth $30. The Witcher 3 isn't my kind of game but based on the size of it and it's perceived quality, I'd conclude that it's probably worth $30 at the very least. If I'm being objective, my views on fantasy genre games and that franchise in particular don't factor in. I won't buy it (some how I actually already own it, and I'm not sure how that happened), but that doesn't mean that it's not worth the money. It's not worth the money to me as I won't play it, but I can see it has value.
I agree with the first part. The game has lots of small details that are missing or are otherwise under developed. If you look beyond the surface, the game is obviously incomplete. Bugged UI elements and other aspects of it scream this as well. However, I will disagree with the next part about the gameplay. As I've said, the basic design is good. Virtually all of the issues that exist with the combat boil down to balance issues with weapons, abilities, mods and cyberware. Many things are over powered and many are underpowered. Some items don't even work, but stealth combat is in there. It wasn't cut. You absolutely can cloak and sneek around or use Cyberware to take enemies out without firing a shot. You can also suppress a handgun and headshot people or break their necks and dispose of bodies without ever being seen. Does it work as well as it should? No, it doesn't but that's due to the afore-mentioned issues with balance.
There are several missions that actually require stealth. Or rather, you get bonuses if you complete them without being spotted. Some fixer's seem to prefer this over others. Padre for example doesn't give two shits if you massacre everyone while Regina prefers a more subtle approach most of the time. There are missions from others that can go either way. There are also cyberdeck abilities that can take enemies out of combat or make them forget they spotted you, etc.
I know your ignoring me, but I proved time and again (and the proof is pages back in this threat) that you jumped in anytime someone said they enjoyed the game to dump all over it and state how in your opinion its terribly broken.
It's not even an opinion, it's as factual as you can get when judging a game's worth. I checked how many hours I've played it. And it comes out at 125 hours. The next game on the list that even comes close was Ghost Recon Breakpoint with 85 hours.
literally what you've been doing for 7 months now non-stop. I've never seen anyone so dedicated to a cause. You are here to dogpile even when nobody is talking about the game, like linking the pcgamer article. And each time you re-iterate how right you were for not buying the game, implying that everyone who bought it at release is a fool. You cannot know if not buying the game was the right decision or not, you just hope it was. However everyone who bought it can decide for themselves if they got their money's worth.
To be perfectly clear, we would have to really agree on objective standards to determine a game's worth. If game length is the only metric to judge, or visuals, etc. Cyberpunk 2077 would easily be worth as much as any game ever made. That being said, on the gameplay and quality fronts it definitely takes a hit. I can certainly understand the desire to hold off on buying it. Even waiting a year or more might be prudent if you have little tolerance for issues. That being said, I've played from the beginning but the only issues I've experienced have been minor outside of the obvious balance issues that plague every version of the game thus far. I'd certainly say it's worth more than $30. Objectively, I think that's true even if you don't want it. As I said, I can appreciate what the Witcher 3 has to offer and judge it to be worth the price even if the game itself isn't for me.
I'm not judging the length of the game, but how much I've got out of it. There were plenty of games I've purchased that I abandoned playing after a few hours without finishing them, so length doesn't matter when I judge those games worth.
You hit the nail on the head: "I'm not interested in buying sg" doesn't equal "it's not worth the asking price"
You can determine it's worth to you after playing it. It doesn't mean it will be the same for everyone. If someone decided not to buy Cyberpunk 2077 when it came out, fair play to them, but spending the next 7 months trying to justify their decision is quite hilarious. If I decide not to buy a game I don't keep returning to its topic for 7 months dunking on it.
I was always pretty clear about that. To me indie games are not interesting. Some might have some neat ideas, but I want the AAA experience, fully voiced conversations with talented voice actors and cutting edge graphics and animations. Even AA games usually leave me disappointed. Like Hellblade. The graphics was good but the gameplay was a very indie experience: Repetitive and basic, especially the combat, oh and it was short, but still managed to be boring at times.
I think the length of a game matters. People always complain when a game is too short and that's not really a complaint that you can leverage against Cyberpunk. If a game is too short then that definitely brings its value into question. Yes, there is something to the subjective standard of what you get out of a game but I'm talking about what could be considered objective standards for a game's value rather than subjective ones. There will always be a subjective slant to all aspects of a game but, I think most people would agree that a 4 hour game is worth less than a 120 hour one assuming everything else is equal.
Yeah, agreed. It's why I refuse to buy the newer CoD's if it were for just the singleplayer. I'm not paying $60 for 4-6 hours tops of gameplay. No way. I don't care how good those 6 hours are. I'd rather just spend more time playing through Witcher 3, Skyrim, etc. again at that point.
Yes, if you need therapy for your Cyperpunk 2077 woes, this is the place.
In all seriousness, Cyberpunk 2077 seems to have deeply hurt some people who were disappointed with it. At the end of the day it's just a fucking game but there were a lot of death threats sent to the developers when it was delayed the second or third time. After it launched, some people were absolutely disgusted with it's quality or lack thereof. Six months later, the game is still deeply flawed. Don't get me wrong, they've corrected most of the game breaking issues but it's still largely incomplete in many respects.
You trust third party hearsay and memes more than actual player experience. So I don't understand why do you keep coming back to the topics about the game if you don't listen to anyone who actually played it and had a good experience. If you were going to play it I'd expect that you'd be hopeful and optimistic to see people enjoying it, instead of arguing with them.
I'm sorry but you are not presenting yourself as someone who is hopeful that the game will be better, instead you try to rub the nose of actual players into things floating around the tubes about the game, like now the memes about things that are not actually in the game.
Well that is exactly your problem, instead of just posting in the topic you might want to read and actually consider first hand player experience even if it contradicts the famous internet consensus.
Do I look worked up to you?
It's interesting when I think about something like Resident Evil Village.
