Review the game you finished recently.

polonyc2

Fully [H]
Joined
Oct 25, 2004
Messages
20,131
Cyberpunk 2077

Recommendation: If you are interested in the game and have a powerful PC don't wait, get it now. If you have doubts wait a few months, if you are on a console: buy a PC.

you admit the game is a bug fest yet recommend people buy it now if you have a powerful PC???...sounds like the better answer is to wait for a few major patches and hopefully experience the game in a much better state...talk about immersion killer- the bugs even though they might not be as bad as consoles is still pretty bad
 

harmattan

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Feb 11, 2008
Messages
4,753
you admit the game is a bug fest yet recommend people buy it now if you have a powerful PC???...sounds like the better answer is to wait for a few major patches and hopefully experience the game in a much better state...talk about immersion killer- the bugs even though they might not be as bad as consoles is still pretty bad
For me, the bugs that exist at present don't detract from the game enough to wait, especially if you have the hardware to run it. In general, the game runs stable and the bugs I've seen are somewhat superficial e.g. I've not run into any plot breakers

The more disappointing thing about the game is what's not present. There are areas of the game that feel empty and mechanics that just seem cauterized. CDPR obviously had to cut corners late in the game as they were rushed to release before the holidays, and had to divert resources to console optimizations.
 

M76

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 12, 2012
Messages
11,970
you admit the game is a bug fest yet recommend people buy it now if you have a powerful PC???...sounds like the better answer is to wait for a few major patches and hopefully experience the game in a much better state...talk about immersion killer- the bugs even though they might not be as bad as consoles is still pretty bad
I mean you are quoting me saying "if you have doubts wait a few months" Not for spring flowers, but for patches, what else?

I've been consistently playing it since release and have close to 100 hours on it now, that I've enjoyed. Immersion breaking bugs are not really more common in it than any other AAA title I played on PC recently. I don't want to keep people from enjoying the game. As mentioned many times before this is ME:Andromeda all over again. Bugs are blown out of proportion and presented as the default instead of freak occurrences by some zealots. If you choose to believe them over me that's on you. But you have been at the throat of this game since release without even seeing it first hand: let it go already, you are not convincing anyone to stop enjoying the game.

The most common bugs that happen are UI related.

  1. Unable to pick up objects under bodies, or behind stuff, have to move bodies to get to them, while some items can't be picked up at all
  2. Can't get out of crouch if you accidentally get into a conversation while crouching, because the same key is used to skip convos
  3. Sometimes stats for items to pick up are stuck on screen, but they can be removed by inspecting another item in the game world
  4. "relic malfunctions" sometimes don't end, you have to do a quick save and reload to fix it.
  5. Sometimes NPCs will call on the phone while having a conversation with another NPC, forcing the other conversation to end prematurely or the two to happen in parallel
That's about the bugs that are kind of annoying and happen fairly often. Often means maybe once an hour.
Everyone can decide if they can live with these or not. I can.
 
Last edited:

polonyc2

Fully [H]
Joined
Oct 25, 2004
Messages
20,131
I mean you are quoting me saying "if you have doubts wait a few months" Not for spring flowers, but for patches, what else?

I've been consistently playing it since release and have close to 100 hours on it now, that I've enjoyed. Immersion breaking bugs are not really more common in it than any other AAA title I played on PC recently. I don't want to keep people from enjoying the game. As mentioned many times before this is ME:Andromeda all over again. Bugs are blown out of proportion and presented as the default instead of freak occurrences by some zealots. If you choose to believe them over me that's on you. But you have been at the throat of this game since release without even seeing it first hand: let it go already, you are not convincing anyone to stop enjoying the game.

bugs are not blown out of proportion at all...you even gave it a 3/10 as far as bugs!!...no way is it the same as 'any other AAA title'...certain people like you just want to minimize them and make it seem like if you can finish the game it means the game is fine...even the people that liked the game a lot admit that it is filled with bugs...every single legit reviewer has mentioned it...bugs don't always have to mean major game breaking ones...I love me some nice graphical eye candy but in the end gameplay trumps graphics

a recent review said it best- "I've got about 50 hours in Cyberpunk 2077 (on PC) at this point, and this is no exaggeration—I don't think I've got a solid 10 minute stretch over those 50 hours without seeing some bug, glitch, AI misfire, or some other wonky problem. A lot of it is minor, but it's almost always distracting and glaringly obvious when something isn't working right"

everyone is giving CDPR a hard time because they deserve it...they lied and recent inside news sources only further cement this...if you want to close your eyes and pretend that it's not true then it's on you
 

M76

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 12, 2012
Messages
11,970
bugs are not blown out of proportion at all...you even gave it a 3/10 as far as bugs!!...no way is it the same as 'any other AAA title'...certain people like you just want to minimize them and make it seem like if you can finish the game it means the game is fine...even the people that liked the game a lot admit that it is filled with bugs...every single legit reviewer has mentioned it...bugs don't always have to mean major game breaking ones...I love me some nice graphical eye candy but in the end gameplay trumps graphics
I'm not saying there aren't more bugs in it than in other games. I've said there aren't more immersion or game breaking bugs. And yes the bugs like the ones that I listed are blown out of proportion because they don't prevent the enjoyment of the game. The game was much worse before the day one and 1.06 patches, and most reviewers used that version, that could explain the disparity you see between early reviews and reports written now.
a recent review said it best- "I've got about 50 hours in Cyberpunk 2077 (on PC) at this point, and this is no exaggeration—I don't think I've got a solid 10 minute stretch over those 50 hours without seeing some bug, glitch, AI misfire, or some other wonky problem. A lot of it is minor, but it's almost always distracting and glaringly obvious when something isn't working right"
That was true for the initial version, which I also judged the game on, hence the 3/10 score. I'm having a much better experience on my second game after patch 1.06. It's still far from perfect, but anyone who says the game is unplayable and can't be enjoyed as is is a liar.


everyone is giving CDPR a hard time because they deserve it...they lied and recent inside news sources only further cement this...if you want to close your eyes and pretend that it's not true then it's on you
No, they are givinig CDPR a much harder time than normal, it seems. Some games get a pass, while others are blown up. That's how things are. I'm always on the side of fairness and reason, that's why I often end up disagreeing with the mob both when they want to destroy something and also when they fall in love with sg and don't want to hear even mild criticism.

And CP2077 deserves a lot of criticism, but the bugs aren't the worst of it by far.
 

harmattan

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Feb 11, 2008
Messages
4,753
I'm not saying there aren't more bugs in it than in other games. I've said there aren't more immersion or game breaking bugs. And yes the bugs like the ones that I listed are blown out of proportion because they don't prevent the enjoyment of the game. The game was much worse before the day one and 1.06 patches, and most reviewers used that version, that could explain the disparity you see between early reviews and reports written now.

That was true for the initial version, which I also judged the game on, hence the 3/10 score. I'm having a much better experience on my second game after patch 1.06. It's still far from perfect, but anyone who says the game is unplayable and can't be enjoyed as is is a liar.



No, they are givinig CDPR a much harder time than normal, it seems. Some games get a pass, while others are blown up. That's how things are. I'm always on the side of fairness and reason, that's why I often end up disagreeing with the mob both when they want to destroy something and also when they fall in love with sg and don't want to hear even mild criticism.

And CP2077 deserves a lot of criticism, but the bugs aren't the worst of it by far.

I completely concur with these points as well as your earlier enumeration of bugs. Saying this game is unplayable on PC is like saying a Lambo is undrivable because a taillight doesn't work an the low oil light keeps coming on. Annoyances at most that don't detract from an otherwise great experience. I wouldn't blame people for waiting until patches are in place, but damn, you're missing out.

There have been AAA games that came out with multiple, far worse incompatibilities, CTDs, animation and clipping issues that people complained about for a few days before forgetting. Cyberpunk is only getting the business because it is so high profile and hyped, and because of vocal owners of 8 year-old consoles. And to be fair, this game should have never seen PS4 and XBox1 labels.

I'm 50 hours in, and the content seems to be thinning out (my main issue with the game is the missing content and cauterized mechanics), but I fully intend to go back for another pass. There aren't many games I deem worthy enough for a second play-through and this is one of them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: M76
like this

M76

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 12, 2012
Messages
11,970
I'm 50 hours in, and the content seems to be thinning out (my main issue with the game is the missing content and cauterized mechanics), but I fully intend to go back for another pass. There aren't many games I deem worthy enough for a second play-through and this is one of them.
I don't even recall what was the last game I played more than once back to back before this one.
The thing is that bugs can be fixed, but a bad game is just a bad game even if it has no bugs.
 

polonyc2

Fully [H]
Joined
Oct 25, 2004
Messages
20,131
I completely concur with these points as well as your earlier enumeration of bugs. Saying this game is unplayable on PC is like saying a Lambo is undrivable because a taillight doesn't work an the low oil light keeps coming on. Annoyances at most that don't detract from an otherwise great experience. I wouldn't blame people for waiting until patches are in place, but damn, you're missing out.

who on Earth said the game is unplayable????????...who???...you have the typical internet mentality who thinks all games are either a perfect 10 or a garbage 0 (zero)...again, who said the game is unplayable on PC?...not me...there are plenty of degrees in between...CP2077 can be a 7.5 and still be considered a good game

again...read the quote I actually put in my last post again...I'll bold the part for you which I think is important to note since you only read the first few words..."I don't think I've got a solid 10 minute stretch over those 50 hours without seeing some bug, glitch, AI misfire, or some other wonky problem. A lot of it is minor, but it's almost always distracting and glaringly obvious when something isn't working right"
 

harmattan

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Feb 11, 2008
Messages
4,753
who on Earth said the game is unplayable????????...who???...you have the typical internet mentality who thinks all games are either a perfect 10 or a garbage 0 (zero)...again, who said the game is unplayable on PC?...not me...there are plenty of degrees in between...CP2077 can be a 7.5 and still be considered a good game

again...read the quote I actually put in my last post again...I'll bold the part for you which I think is important to note since you only read the first few words..."I don't think I've got a solid 10 minute stretch over those 50 hours without seeing some bug, glitch, AI misfire, or some other wonky problem. A lot of it is minor, but it's almost always distracting and glaringly obvious when something isn't working right"
No one's saying you said it was unplayable. I was responding to M76's assertion that "anyone who says the game is unplayable and can't be enjoyed is a liar". And there are many, many people who are saying just that: a quick Google of "Cyberpunk PC unplayable" returns a dozen Reddit threads and near as many Youtube videos.
 

Flogger23m

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 19, 2009
Messages
11,612
With Cyberpunk there are a number of small bugs. Audio issues, being ejected 200 meters back, triggers not working causing you to wonder what you're supposed to do and the like. In general these aren't too bad. Quick save frequently. Most bugs can be fixed by reloading or restarting the game.

There are a lot of shortcomings with the game. It is good overall (I am not yet finished), but to summarize it the game isn't anything special. If you played Sleeping Dogs, Watch Dogs, GTA, or something similar in the recent past you've played Cyberpunk. It does nothing new or innovative over previous games that are similar. But it isn't a bad game by any stretch.
 

M76

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 12, 2012
Messages
11,970
who on Earth said the game is unplayable????????...who???..
And here I was thinking that's exactly what you are arging, now I'm confused. Why else did you call me out on recommending the game then? I mentioned the bugs, if you admit that it's playable then why am I in the wrong for recommending the game for those who have hiend PCs?

.you have the typical internet mentality who thinks all games are either a perfect 10 or a garbage 0 (zero)...again, who said the game is unplayable on PC?...not me...there are plenty of degrees in between...CP2077 can be a 7.5 and still be considered a good game
So you think recommending a 7.5 game is a mistake? You can't have it both ways. Either it's an unplayable bugfest and I'm wrong to recommend it or it is a 7.5, which is it?
again...read the quote I actually put in my last post again...I'll bold the part for you which I think is important to note since you only read the first few words..."I don't think I've got a solid 10 minute stretch over those 50 hours without seeing some bug, glitch, AI misfire, or some other wonky problem. A lot of it is minor, but it's almost always distracting and glaringly obvious when something isn't working right"
And I've already said that's a gross exaggeration. I finished AC Valhalla a few days before CP2077 came out, and it also had bugs "AI misfires", and other wonky problems aplenty. I even posted an image in the game's topic about the upside down flying ship, which was not a one off thing.
 
Last edited:

M76

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 12, 2012
Messages
11,970
There are a lot of shortcomings with the game. It is good overall (I am not yet finished), but to summarize it the game isn't anything special. If you played Sleeping Dogs, Watch Dogs, GTA, or something similar in the recent past you've played Cyberpunk. It does nothing new or innovative over previous games that are similar. But it isn't a bad game by any stretch.
If you think this is like GTA Then you are missing a lot. When did GTA or Sleeping dogs give you the freedom to hack your way through problems use secret backdoors, or complete your mission without killing anyone slipping in and out unseen? While of course also having the option to go in guns blazing.

Also some of the attention to detail with vehicle sounds for example is amazing. What does GTA have a synthetic buzz that makes your head hurt. While Cyberpunk hands down has the most realistic engine sounds I've heard in not just action games but any game. I'd rather drive to my destinations even if its far away in the game just to enjoy the sound and the feel of driving.
 

polonyc2

Fully [H]
Joined
Oct 25, 2004
Messages
20,131
And here I was thinking that's exactly what you are arging, now I'm confused. Why else did you call me out on recommending the game then? I mentioned the bugs, if you admit that it's playable then why am I in the wrong for recommending the game for those who have hiend PCs?


So you think recommending a 7.5 game is a mistake? You can't have it both ways. Either it's an unplayable bugfest and I'm wrong to recommend it or it is a 7.5, which is it?

And I've already said that's a gross exaggeration. I finished AC Valhalla a few days before CP2077 came out, and it also had bugs "AI misfires", and other wonky problems aplenty. I even posted an image in the game's topic about the upside down flying ship, which was not a one off thing.

just because you can finish the game does not mean it's in great shape...there are a ton of bugs...even the developer has admitted as much...the game is a technical and visual showcase but you have to take everything into consideration before recommending a game and not just 1 aspect...if all you care about are amazing graphics then sure buy the game now...I disagree with your assertion that the current bugs are not immersion breaking

they are to me...when your character randomly loses his clothes or can't move from the prone position or you see a ton of pop-in, AI issues, texture bugs etc it totally breaks immersion...wait for a few patches is what I would say...CDPR mentioned the first major patch coming in late January with another to follow a few weeks later...at a minimum most people should wait for that 2nd patch

and again you're comparing other games like Valhalla to CP2077 and the bugs in both games are totally different...every game has bugs but the ones in CP are a magnitude higher then any game in recent memory...closest comparison I can think of is the release of Arkham Knight PC where the developer had to pull the game for a few weeks
 

Flogger23m

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 19, 2009
Messages
11,612
If you think this is like GTA Then you are missing a lot. When did GTA or Sleeping dogs give you the freedom to hack your way through problems use secret backdoors, or complete your mission without killing anyone slipping in and out unseen? While of course also having the option to go in guns blazing.

Watch Dogs allows that. Same general mechanics. You can cause static/buzz enemies which will distract them just like like blinding optics hack in this game. Really not a single thing unique so far in this game. If you played a few of the major open world games in the past few years, you've seen it all. Doesn't make it a bad game.

Cyberpunk is like a mix of Deus Ex (HR & MD) and GTA. Without going into a lot of detail, I think DE HR/MD are superior in terms of focus, finely tuned gameplay mechanics & story. Cyberpunk isn't bad, I'd say it is a good game. I just don't think it isn't anywhere near the level of hype it got. Much like Horizon Zero Dawn. Great game overall, but nothing ground breaking.
 
Last edited:

M76

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 12, 2012
Messages
11,970
Watch Dogs allows that. Same general mechanics. You can cause static/buzz enemies which will distract them just like like blinding optics hack in this game. Really not a single thing unique so far in this game. If you played a few of the major open world games in the past few years, you've seen it all. Doesn't make it a bad game.

Cyberpunk is like a mix of Deus Ex (HR & MD) and GTA. Without going into a lot of detail, I think DE HR/MD are superior in terms of focus, finely tuned gameplay mechanics & story. Cyberpunk isn't bad, I'd say it is a good game. I just don't think it isn't anywhere near the level of hype it got. Much like Horizon Zero Dawn. Great game overall, but nothing ground breaking.
You just summed up the gist of the problem inadvertently: Unrealistic expectations. Everyone has set up their own image about how cyberpunk should be, and when they realize it is "just another game" well, we see the result.

HZD is also a great game, I don't know what did you expect from that? What would've made it "live up to the hype" for you?

I only hoped not even expected that Cyberpunk will be like DeusEx, as that is the genre standard. No, not the mediocre HR, or the slightly better MD, the original. And it gets pretty close in terms of gameplay.
The narrative is another story entirely and I think that is where Cyberpunk utterly fails, and not because it is open world.

Cyberpunk is a far superior game to HR and MD in terms of gameplay.

As for WatchDogs that's not even a meaningful comparison. That game plays on a whole different lower level of both immersion and quality of gameplay experience. Even Watch Dogs Legion feels like a relic compared to CP2077.
 

M76

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 12, 2012
Messages
11,970
just because you can finish the game does not mean it's in great shape...there are a ton of bugs...even the developer has admitted as much...the game is a technical and visual showcase but you have to take everything into consideration before recommending a game and not just 1 aspect...if all you care about are amazing graphics then sure buy the game now...I disagree with your assertion that the current bugs are not immersion breaking

they are to me...when your character randomly loses his clothes or can't move from the prone position or you see a ton of pop-in, AI issues, texture bugs etc it totally breaks immersion...wait for a few patches is what I would say...CDPR mentioned the first major patch coming in late January with another to follow a few weeks later...at a minimum most people should wait for that 2nd patch
The question was whether is it playable / enjoyable. You saying I shouldn't recommend it, implies that it isn't. You choosing not to play and wait for patches is perfectly fine, but you want everyone else to do and recommend the same. This is ridiculous. I did not force anyone to buy the game, I fully disclosed that there are bugs, everyone is grown up enough to decide for themselves if they want to wait or enjoy the game as is like me and countless others.

and again you're comparing other games like Valhalla to CP2077 and the bugs in both games are totally different...every game has bugs but the ones in CP are a magnitude higher then any game in recent memory...closest comparison I can think of is the release of Arkham Knight PC where the developer had to pull the game for a few weeks
Oh and we are back again comparing it to an actually unplayable game. But no you are not saying that... right?
 

polonyc2

Fully [H]
Joined
Oct 25, 2004
Messages
20,131
The question was whether is it playable / enjoyable. You saying I shouldn't recommend it, implies that it isn't. You choosing not to play and wait for patches is perfectly fine, but you want everyone else to do and recommend the same. This is ridiculous. I did not force anyone to buy the game, I fully disclosed that there are bugs, everyone is grown up enough to decide for themselves if they want to wait or enjoy the game as is like me and countless others.

you can recommend any game you want...it's your opinion...all I'm saying is that it doesn't make sense based on the fact that you gave it a 3/10 in terms of bugs/immersion...a 3/10!...that's your words and yet to you a 3/10 bugginess is perfectly acceptable...I wonder what level of bugs you need to make it unacceptable- 1/10?
 

Flogger23m

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 19, 2009
Messages
11,612
You just summed up the gist of the problem inadvertently: Unrealistic expectations. Everyone has set up their own image about how cyberpunk should be, and when they realize it is "just another game" well, we see the result.

I knew it would be an average game. But still, it is always interesting to see how something measures up to the hype.

The narrative is another story entirely and I think that is where Cyberpunk utterly fails, and not because it is open world.

Exactly. DE games were far superior, in every way story wise.

Cyberpunk is a far superior game to HR and MD in terms of gameplay.

I disagree. HR/MD did everything Cyberpunk did but better. Cyberpunk has a bit more variety, but most of it utterly sucks and feels underdeveloped. The core things that are worth doing are in HR/MD, which are done better.

As for WatchDogs that's not even a meaningful comparison. That game plays on a whole different lower level of both immersion and quality of gameplay experience.

Considering the hacking in combat gameplay is pretty much exactly the same in both games, from hacking cameras to gain a better vantage point or using them to get a view to hack into another thing, blinding NPCs, calling in reinforcements, making things explode I beg to differ. There are huge gameplay overlaps between the games and you absolutely can compare them.

End of the day, Cyberpunk is just another take on the GTA formula - a shooter based game where you drive around a city running errands for people. As with all games there are differences but the general formula is the same thing I've seen in many games. This isn't a bad thing but I don't pretend it is something special or unique.
 

M76

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 12, 2012
Messages
11,970
I knew it would be an average game. But still, it is always interesting to see how something measures up to the hype.
I'm more interested in how good the game is for me. I can't sincerely complain when I found it the second best game of 2020, and the one I've spent more time with than any other game.

Exactly. DE games were far superior, in every way story wise.
Only story wise, worse in map design, complexity, world building and variation.
I disagree. HR/MD did everything Cyberpunk did but better. Cyberpunk has a bit more variety, but most of it utterly sucks and feels underdeveloped. The core things that are worth doing are in HR/MD, which are done better.
Shooting is much better in CP, melee also far superior in CP, cybernetic enhancements are about equally useless in both games, but ramdecks and quickhacks make Cyberpunk ultimately superior. PLus it has crafting, loads more equipment, outfits, none of which is present in either new DX. Tons more side missions, many of which actually good. Sure DX also had good side missions, but there were very few. Also replay value was little, and the ending was literally pressing one of four buttons in HR.

Considering the hacking in combat gameplay is pretty much exactly the same in both games, from hacking cameras to gain a better vantage point or using them to get a view to hack into another thing, blinding NPCs, calling in reinforcements, making things explode I beg to differ. There are huge gameplay overlaps between the games and you absolutely can compare them.
That's exactly why it is easy to compare and realize what a simplistic spec of dust watchdogs is comparatively. It's not a bad game, just plays in a different league.
End of the day, Cyberpunk is just another take on the GTA formula - a shooter based game where you drive around a city running errands for people. As with all games there are differences but the general formula is the same thing I've seen in many games. This isn't a bad thing but I don't pretend it is something special or unique.
It's unique in attention to detail. You can walk into any back alley in cyberpunk and it will be full of life, tons of NPCs, conversing, or just going about their business. GTA is sterile and fake like there is only a facade with nothing behind it. I find myself often driving through night city just for the sake of it, or even walking to my destination through skyways and alleys to take it in.
 
Joined
Apr 29, 2002
Messages
2,514
Just finished Tomb Raider: Shadow. Game was ok but way to much emphasis on the climb/jump/swing mechanics and way to few enemy interactions. Played on 2nd hardest difficulty and completely ignored the craft system excepted where forced to use in the game. Glad it was a sale purchase.
 

Flogger23m

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 19, 2009
Messages
11,612
Only story wise, worse in map design, complexity, world building and variation.

I'll disagree, I think the map design is generally not as good. I recall you even hinting at that in your review.

Shooting is much better in CP...

I don't think so. You can't even toggle aim. Cyberpunk's weapons lack impact, partially due to the leveling and oddness of having to find newer versions every hour or so of gameplay. When you pick up 10 identical guns and they're 100% the same, save for a few magically doing more damage, that is lazy game design.

melee also far superior in CP...

The fist fighting is laughably bad in CP. To the point I laughed aloud while playing those fist fighting missions. DE had good melee, although limited. I never messed around with mantis blades but from what I can see, it does nothing notably different than what DE had. Neither game has good melee. Sleeping Dogs & Mad Max are better, but those games are built around it.

ramdecks and quickhacks make Cyberpunk ultimately superior.

Ramdecks are nothing more than cool down timers. Practically every game has those for abilities.

PLus it has crafting, loads more equipment...

Crafting is good for...? It doesn't add anything to the game. Especially with how it was implemented so poorly. The extra equipment, like candy bars and pizzas that do the same thing? Worst part of the game. The whole junk & "health" aspect of the game is a worthless edition. Games like DE do it right; a few items that make sense like medkits. Incorporating a bunch of nonsense and duplicates of them is just an odd way to clutter the game up. It really was just a mask for making money.

outfits..

This is a net negative. The game seldom shows your character, but when they do, they look like an absolute moron with mismatched clothing. A good game would give sensible clothing options and a proper aesthetic. I don't consider playing barbie to be an good edition in any game, unless you're playing something like the Sims.

If it was sensible then it would've been nice. All they needed were a few clothing/gear types with better modability. Instead, mods get stuck to clothing and you end up finding tee shirts that are better at stopping bullets than body armor. What?!

Tons more side missions, many of which actually good. Sure DX also had good side missions, but there were very few.

I consider this to be a negative. CP's story was lacking, and you spent more time on side quests than the main story. It should be the opposite. Side content means that, extra stuff on the side. Not the bulk of the game. The story was simplistic and at times incoherent. I too enjoyed some of the side missions, but that time would've been better spent on making a much better story.

If your game is 50+ hours, you need 35 of those to be spent in the main story that is well written.

Also replay value was little, and the ending was literally pressing one of four buttons in HR.

End mission maybe, but stealth and gameplay itself was more fine tuned and dynamic in the DE games. Stealth options and the like was far superior. There were more gameplay options available, IMO. Take the Singapore mission in HR as an example. You can hack and carry a turret throughout the map and let it gun down everything that moves if you so desire. Or make new pathways by punching through walls if you have that perk.

It's unique in attention to detail. You can walk into any back alley in cyberpunk and it will be full of life, tons of NPCs, conversing, or just going about their business.

I can't think of any open world game that doesn't do that. Even many non-open world games do. CP was a let down here as it was in no way better than other games I've played. They talked up how the areas would change during day/night time, but I didn't see anything like that. The same person were there, having the same conversations no matter the time of day. They also talked about how they'd have living buildings but again, same few NPCs doing typical things in buildings with only a few areas accessible. I fully expected they would've live up to these promises though.

The way I see it, Cyberpunk is a good game. It just doesn't do anything great. It has a lot to offer, but like most games that offer a lot there is less detail in every specific thing. It is always a compromise, more things in less detail or less in more detail.

As for 2020 games for me, it would be a hard toss up between HZD and CP. I lean towards HZD for the much more coherent story. Death Stranding would come very close to both for me.
 

M76

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 12, 2012
Messages
11,970
I'll disagree, I think the map design is generally not as good. I recall you even hinting at that in your review.
Because you haven't read my Deus Ex HR review. I literally tear them a new a-hole about the awful level design.

As for my CP review it is entirely based on my first playthrough, where I all but ignored side missions, and with that most of the unique locations. I since noticed a lot of the buildings have various entry points. Granted I still don't think the level design is as good as the original DeusEx, but much better than human revolution.
I don't think so. You can't even toggle aim. Cyberpunk's weapons lack impact, partially due to the leveling and oddness of having to find newer versions every hour or so of gameplay.
I didn't play DeusEx recently, but I don't remember anything postiive about the gunplay, for the most part it just wasn't very effective with the best weapons constantly suffering from ammo shortage. I Even mentioned it in my review, that for the sniper rifle there is literally no ammo to find in the first half of the game, when you play on more open areas where it would actually be useful, then find a ton in the late game when you spend your time in confined spaces.

When you pick up 10 identical guns and they're 100% the same, save for a few magically doing more damage, that is lazy game design.

It's an RPG, LOL. Every RPG has weapon stats, you can't fault the game for the one thing it does as advertised. As in including RPG mechanics.
The fist fighting is laughably bad in CP. To the point I laughed aloud while playing those fist fighting missions. DE had good melee, although limited. I never messed around with mantis blades but from what I can see, it does nothing notably different than what DE had. Neither game has good melee. Sleeping Dogs & Mad Max are better, but those games are built around it.
Well I couldn't disagree more, fist fights are actually good fun in CP, I don't even remember using melee in DeusEx beyond takedowns. And while we are at that, takedowns are well implemented in CP as well, it being tied to enemy levels is good, also the time you can hold on to enemies is dependent on their level.

Ramdecks are nothing more than cool down timers. Practically every game has those for abilities.
Except this is the best and most immersive implementation of a cool down timer ever. But it seems to me Cyberpunk can do anything it won't be good enough.
Crafting is good for...? It doesn't add anything to the game. Especially with how it was implemented so poorly. The extra equipment, like candy bars and pizzas that do the same thing? Worst part of the game. The whole junk & "health" aspect of the game is a worthless edition. Games like DE do it right; a few items that make sense like medkits. Incorporating a bunch of nonsense and duplicates of them is just an odd way to clutter the game up. It really was just a mask for making money.
Crafting exists, that's already a win. The inventory managemnt can get a bit cumbersome, but not nearly as bad as in DX HR and MD, I still have nightmares about the inventory there. The foodstuffs is more a balance issue it seems to me, I've been using them on my second playthrough so much that I actually run out and had to buy some off some vendors. They are great for replenishing health outside of combat. The balance issue being that you find so much maxdocs that you don't really need to use food, but I still like to do it for immersion. Hint to developers: If excessive maxdoc usage would have sideffects it would suddenly make a ton more sense to eat.
This is a net negative. The game seldom shows your character, but when they do, they look like an absolute moron with mismatched clothing. A good game would give sensible clothing options and a proper aesthetic. I don't consider playing barbie to be an good edition in any game, unless you're playing something like the Sims.
Yeah, bla bla, yada yada, if I had as much money as I've heard the "I Don't want barbie dressup in games" bullshit I'd be a billionaire. How can something be a net negative that you can just choose to ignore if it is of no interest to you? I hate it when the character's look is fixed. I love the "barbie dressup" part of the games, in most recent games it was relegated behind microtransactions, which I refuse to pay for. You know the other bullshit "cosmetic microtransactions are harmless".

And if you chose your character's clothes based on stats instead of looks that's on you. You also choose your clothing based on pure utllity IRL ?
If it was sensible then it would've been nice. All they needed were a few clothing/gear types with better modability. Instead, mods get stuck to clothing and you end up finding tee shirts that are better at stopping bullets than body armor. What?!
Again, it's an RPG, that's a feature not a bug. I'd prefer it to be more of an immersive sim, but I won't trash the game for being an RPG when it was advertised as one.
I consider this to be a negative. CP's story was lacking, and you spent more time on side quests than the main story. It should be the opposite. Side content means that, extra stuff on the side. Not the bulk of the game. The story was simplistic and at times incoherent. I too enjoyed some of the side missions, but that time would've been better spent on making a much better story.
I agree about the main story being lacking, but I disagree that you want to restrict the amount of side content. Again, this is something you can ignore if you want to, the game is not forcing you to do side missions. In fact it actually rushes you through the main story making doing side gigs a bit immersion breaking, which I Do fault the game for. This discrepancy should've been better handled. But I'd not want less side content, I wish there was an infinite amount of gigs, so I get bored of them before they run out.

If your game is 50+ hours, you need 35 of those to be spent in the main story that is well written.
No, you need no such rules. Again, it is the players choice how much side missions they do.

End mission maybe, but stealth and gameplay itself was more fine tuned and dynamic in the DE games. Stealth options and the like was far superior. There were more gameplay options available, IMO. Take the Singapore mission in HR as an example. You can hack and carry a turret throughout the map and let it gun down everything that moves if you so desire. Or make new pathways by punching through walls if you have that perk.
Stealth in HR and to some degree MD, is OP as hell, it's child's play. So much so that it makes zero sense to even spend on stealth abilities in the games. I've had a problem spending praxis points in them because the abilities are so unnecessary or outright.worthless. At least in CP2077 it's a challenge to do a mission without getting noticed.
I can't think of any open world game that doesn't do that. Even many non-open world games do. CP was a let down here as it was in no way better than other games I've played.

They talked up how the areas would change during day/night time, but I didn't see anything like that. The same person were there, having the same conversations no matter the time of day. They also talked about how they'd have living buildings but again, same few NPCs doing typical things in buildings with only a few areas accessible. I fully expected they would've live up to these promises though.
Well that's your opinion, and it is utterly ridiculous. I've never had the feeling of having to push through crowds in any other game, and NPCs don't just have a single walk animation, there is so much variation, some are on the phone some are arguing, etc. And so many locations populated with homeless camps, food vendors, marketplaces, or just back alley deals going down between gangs. Random fighting between cops and criminals. But it's no better than any other game...What a joke.
And your problem? That it is always the same. That's deliberate game design 101: The designer cannot predict when you will be at a certain part of the map, so these NPC interactions must happen when you are there, otherwise you could easily miss all of them. I mean a day cycle in CP2077 is 3 hours. If every event only happened once a day, your chances of actually encountering it would be close to zero. And there is actually variation, traffic and crowds are much smaller during the nights, and I encountered Civilians who were on the phone or arguing during the day, not in the night.

The way I see it, Cyberpunk is a good game. It just doesn't do anything great. It has a lot to offer, but like most games that offer a lot there is less detail in every specific thing. It is always a compromise, more things in less detail or less in more detail.
Yet I see more detail in every inch of the city than any other game had, even non-open world games. If this is not good enough, what is?

4.jpg 3.jpg
1.jpg 2.jpg
 
Last edited:

Domingo

Fully [H]
Joined
Jul 30, 2004
Messages
19,426
Cyberpunk 2077 (PC)
7.5/10

Graphics: 8/10. I feel fortunate that the PC version is the best version and I have the hardware to run it with the details dialed up fairly high. The ray tracing and lighting effects are amazing and lifelike. The graffiti and signs everyone feel like they were intentionally placed and the details are stunning. Certain characters (like Judy, Kerry, and Jackie) look almost like real people. Yet certain vehicles, characters (Panam especially), and textures look straight out of an Xbox 360 game. Performance is also pretty shaky and the steam/smoke effects cause massive FPS drops.

Sound: 7/10. The acting is inconsistent and it honestly sounds like 3-4 voice actors played everyone in the whole game. The in-game music feels appropriate and the sounds of the world are really good, though. Weapons have impact, cars have "oomph," and the sounds of the city are accurate. Atmos seems to be bugged, though. After 5-6 minutes my front/right speaker develops a fluttering noise that doesn't stop until I restart the game.

The game itself 8/10: At this point we all know the game is buggy. The bugs I encountered mostly revolved around weird open-world quirks. Objects that I couldn't interact with, floating objects, disappearing pedestrians, clipping problems, etc. Things that luckily don't matter all that much. Then again, does anything in Cyberpunk? Outside of doing missions, nothing really seems to matter. Random objects are literally everywhere and so are pedestrians, gang members, and cops. None of them matter in the grand scheme of things. Luckily, they're where various bugs crop up most of the time. The story is decent and I had a lot of fun just cruising around and trying different approaches to battles. That's what most of the game's content is...random shootouts. You can try lots of different approaches (stealth, quickhacks, run 'n gun, melee, etc.), which is pretty neat. You become almost invincible no matter what type of character you end up as. You have to intentionally choose bad perks not to become totally overpowered. The plot centers around a couple key decisions, so whether you want to play nice or kill everything that moves affects very little outside 2-3 missions. I got a lot of enjoyment exploring the environment, which is where the game shines the most. The game world is huge, varied, and well developed. I wish the core game story was longer and there were fewer pointless shootouts. As it stands, the two things are pretty disparate and barely affect each other. The main story is probably 15-20 hours long while all the "side" stuff is 100+ hours if you really dive into it.
 

Flogger23m

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 19, 2009
Messages
11,612
Cyberpunk 2077

One of the most anticipated games of the past few years has finally come. Promising to revolutionize open world action-RPG games with more detail and features than ever before, does this game live up to the hype? No, it doesn't. It does not bring a single new feature that hasn't been done before in numerous other recent games, and many of the core features are actually regressive compared to its peers. Though not all was lost; the game is still decent even if underwhelming in many areas.

Seeing as this is an RPG the first thing I'll touch on is the story and world building. The story is lackluster and perhaps one of the more disappointing things about Cyberpunk 2077. Depending on how much of the side content you can stomach, the story only lasts for around 1/3 to 1/2 of your play time. This hinders the pacing of the game (another thing I'll touch on later). It makes the various activities you do in the game lack context and meaning and seem disjointed as you wander off doing random things with little sense of purpose or urgency. Because side content is inherently side content, it means most of the things you do in the game will have little impact or relation to the overall story. For a game that is supposed to be story based this is a huge shortcoming. More so in that it is an RPG, where one would think the actions you take over the course of the game matter. The writing itself is spotty, at times incoherent, jumping too quickly from mission to mission. Sprinkle in an obscene amount of "side content" and it becomes difficult to keep track of what you're even doing in the game. It pulls you out of the experience as you run after exclamation points and question marks on a cluttered map. You'll meet characters and have short interactions with them, but for some reason, the game builds a strong relationship with these people of which you can barely even remember their name or what they did and why you're supposed to care about them. It makes for awkward instances as your character reacts with strong emotions or emphasis when the context is lost in a deluge of quests and otherwise inconsequential dialogue and events.

The events that occur over the course of the main story itself are fairly basic. There is no intricate plot that slowly unravels into something bigger. There are no twists and turns. The game never puts you at a cross roads in which you have different paths to take. The game doesn't even take a strong path on its own to impart some impact, loss or emotion. You get an option for a few different endings (I've so far played three of them), and while they are a bit different they all have the same general outcome and outlook. They do the same thing every story based game does towards the end without raising the bar. This isn't necessarily bad. There are many games out there with simplistic stories that are good enough to push the game along and rise your emotions as they draw to an end. But that is the difference between an average story, like Cyberpunk, and an excellent story.

Cyberpunk takes a simplistic, generic and at times juvenile approach to its subject material. The world is not presented in a complex way, but rather a caricature of works such as Deus Ex or Ghost in the Shell. If you were hoping for a good science fiction story you'll have to look elsewhere. Cybepunk exists in a vacuum, with the various characteristics of its world set in stone without convincing justification or world building. Mega Corporations, aka Corpos, run the world. They're bad and evil yet everyone willingly puts up with it all for some undisclosed reason. That is the gist of the story building. If you were hoping to find a story that describes their rise to power, contemplate the meaning of life or death in a world where humans were becoming more machine than organic you'll be in for a disappointment. There is no Deus Ex. Corpos do horrible things and see no realistic back (save for a very small minority of extremists). As I played through the game I was hoping for some type of event that would resonate in the world around me. That never game. The game has an awkward mix of a serious and satirical tone which feels off. You'll see gun vending machines in offices and gun advertisements with lines straight out of Borderlands. I can't remember the words exactly, but things like "Shooty shooty make their face go splatty splatty" is the type of things you'll see plastered around the city.

All in all, the story is enough to carry the game, but just barely. The short length, huge amount of side quests and at times rushed and disjointed writing almost made me loose interest early on. This doesn't mean the story is horrible, it is simply video game average.

The gameplay itself leaves much to be desired. While not horrible, it is the same basic thing we see in most open world games. Combat itself is middle of the road, in part to the antiquated RPG mechanics forced upon the player. NPCs are dumb. Most open world games feature dumb NPCs so this isn't all that shocking. However, Cyberpunk is worse than average. Sometimes NPCs will trigger and kill you for seemingly no reason. Other times you can get into a shoot out and their buddies near by won't notice despite bullets flying by them. And yet, sometimes you get detected but kill an NPC within a second and all their buddies are automatically alerted. Maybe some have better implants that send signals to auto alert everyone in the area but that won't explain why some people don't rush to help their friends after being shot with 50 bullets. NPCs don't use any sensible tactics. They move and shoot, and then play whack a mole behind crates or similar. They'll turn around and run with their back exposed to you for no sensible reason. And multiple NPCs will do this at the same time. Don't expect one to lay down suppressive fire while the others flank you. NPCs work independently. Civilian NPCs will also act carelessly, often standing by and not running while in the middle of a shoot out. Police are inconsistent, ranging from homicidal lunatics for walking too close to them or hiring you for a job to kill gang members then teleporting to the scene to kill you. Police will spawn in the players face often times, which inexcusable. Likewise, you can murder four officers and then drive two blocks away and they'll loose interest. Seeing how had the NPCs are, that is probably for the best.

Which brings us to the next point, being shot with 50 bullets is a thing in Cyberpunk. That wasn't an exaggeration. Cyberpunk proudly places the worst and most antiquated RPG mechanics center stage. This means you'll face idiotic NPCs that are bullet sponges, because your guns don't do enough damage anymore. You'll dump a magazine into their unexposed face, watch them catch on fire and fall to the ground multiple times and shrug it off as if nothing happened (there isn't a damage/wounding system for most if not all enemies save for one boss). Despite the absurdity in the amount of damage an enemy can soak up the lack of a damage system makes the game feel flat. You won't see an NPC limp away, Far Cry 2 style, and you won't be blowing off parts of machines Horizon Zero Dawn style while destroying various enemy parts. Instead you get flat bullet sponges if the enemies are more difficult. Not more intelligent enemies, just bullet sponges.

Throughout the game you'll find a variety of weapons but they get outclassed quickly. Unless you want to relegate yourself to using weapons with less power than a BB gun, you'll have to constantly swap out your weapons for the same damn model that is 100% identical save for improved stats. You'll spend more time picking up guns and junk from dead bodies than you do making them. And then open a poorly organized menu to scrap or sell 7 of the exact same damn guns as you find the one with the most damage. Every now and then you'll find a cool, interesting gun, but it will become useless too quickly. So scrap/sell it and go back to using the same damn gun you've been using for hours. There are Legendary/Iconic/Rare weapons which are exactly the same as their regular versions, just with some extra magical powers and color schemes. Once you find those, everything else is scrap/selling fodder.

This is a shame, because there is an interesting variety of guns in the game. Traditional firearms, charging weapons, smart weapons and the like. But you simply won't get to use most of them because they'll get de-levelled very quickly. The fun in getting new gear in video games is using it and experimenting with it. The antiquated weapon leveling system inhibits this. There are many weapons I received throughout the game that were fun, but worthless to use. The game would've been far better off had the weapon leveling been removed entirely, with a larger emphasis placed on accessories. Give us tools to play with, not busy work.

Crafting and earning money is a pain. The game fills the map with cars to buy and expensive enhancements you can get for your player that you can't buy until you're practically done with the game. As you progress through more becomes available, but it is too little too late. You'll want to pick up every little thing in the world to sell it. Crafting parts are hard to come by as well. Upgrading your current gear makes little sense as the upgrades are so small that you'll find something better lying around. The game has a lot of offer, but seems to hold back on giving us the tools for variety of gameplay. It chooses to lock you into a small amount of content for some odd reason.

Outside of shooting people for 3 minutes and then picking up crap for 3 minutes and selling/scrapping it for 5 minutes, the game has some mediocre stealth and cybernetic modding gameplay tossed in. While these features are not bad, they are nothing special. We've seen it all before in games like Deus Ex and Watch Dogs. And in many cases past games have done these better. There are a number of cybernetic mods which can change the gameplay slightly for the player, however at the core the majority of them are just iterative. You can carry more crap. You get more health. You can hack more stuff. Some, like arm mounted blades or grenade launchers, offer some more uniqueness but those are far and few between. Games like Deus Ex Human Revolution and Mankind Divided had more expansive and unique enhancements that shaped gameplay more. In those games you could upgrade strength which did more than allow you to open doors; you could enhance yourself to punch through walls to make new access points or add a hovering mod which prevents death from jumping off buildings. Cyberpunk is sufficient, but seeing how long it takes to get an enhancement, it seems shockingly basic. Stealth gameplay is similar to games like Watch Dogs. In place of Botnets you get RAM, which works the same: You get a certain amount of energy to perform certain hacks like making something explode, distracting an enemy and the like. I haven't seen anything unique in Cyberpunk, and most of the notable ones can be found in Watch Dogs and similar.

This lack of innovation isn't necessarily bad. The main short coming lies within how these various features work together and their implementation. Many areas are not very conductive to stealth gameplay from a map perspective. NPCs may be leveled too high, so quietly eliminating them will be impossible even with various hacks used. Cyberpunk offers a lot but simply lacks depth. It is a wide open ocean, with the depth of a swimming pool.

Perks and character upgrades are also mindbogglingly lazy. Most involve things such as increasing damage with pistols, decreasing recoil, increasing this by X%, or this by Y%. You'll come across the exact same doors throughout the game, but some will have a higher level and therefore you cannot open them because you did not put enough points into Reflexes. On the contrary, a game likes Deus Ex will offer multiple approaches as well but once you specialize in a certain way you can use that approach. If you can punch through walls, you can punch through walls. You invested in that upgrade and chose that gameplay option, you don't need to keep upgrading it. Sometimes more is less. Cyberpunk's problem is higher end functions are cordoned off, meaning you'll have to lock yourself into one play style. If you want to keep things fresh you'll need to invest perks/upgrade points into various things but you'll largely be relegated to the same generic gameplay/upgrades like increasing things by small percents. Seldom does an upgrade bring a tangible gameplay change. But there is still enough variety in the perk system. There is still some diversity of how you want to play the game. It simply isn't fine tuned. It gets the job done, but is a run of the mill upgrade system.

Graphics in the game range from great, decent, and trash. Most of the game looks good, and lighting looks excellent in some areas. Especially with ray tracing. This is the first game where I felt disabling ray tracing resulted in a large decrease in image quality. Lighting, reflections, and city illumination can look stunning. Yet characters look dated and a bit like plastic. Mouth animations are not very detailed. Textures in the city look good and with many detail. Other areas are devoid of textures and look like something from a 2007 game. Atmospheric effects look middle of the road, including rain, clouds and view distance. Interiors of vehicles lack detail and have an awful bloom affect. Animation quality in general isn't top of the line. Overall the game looks good. Stunning in some areas, average in others. This is no Crysis though. There are too many big faults for me to say this game is the standard for graphics to be compared to.

Sounds are fine, but nothing special. Those goes from guns to cars to environmental sounds. There is little weapon reverberation and bounce back in the city. You may as well be unloading in a flat field. Not that NPCs have realistic reactions, but it would've been wonderful if they made the city sound like a city. Have the gun shots bounce back and fourth and have NPCs react realistically to it. Voice acting is typically fine.

Performance is mostly fine as of this writing. I get 50-70 frame rates with all settings maxed out, save for screen space reflections and RTX lighting set to the 2nd highest setting. DLSS set to Balanced. 2560x1440. Specs: RTX 3070 + OC, Ryzen 3700X, 32GB RAM, SSD.

There are many small bugs. Mission triggers not working. Animation bugs. Cars frozen in mid air. NPC dialogue going mute. NPC dialogue switching from in person to over the radio, back and fourth despite the person not talking on the phone/radio. Some crashes. GPS navigation is horrific. In general these are mostly small issues. Reloading or restarting will typically fix them. I did not find them game breaking.

And finally, praise where praise is due. The excellent quick save system. The game has quick saves that actually work. And it has 4 quick save slots. This means when you do have a bug and need to restart, you jump right back in the action. No nonsense unlike other games, where "saving" relocates you, resets enemies and the like. Quick save as much as possible. Make a manual save every hour or so. When a bug does occur, you won't be out of much time. It is fairly sad that I have to make a note of this, but so few games have a proper save system and CD Projekt did right in Cyberpunk 2077.

All in all, the above sounds like a lot of nitpicking and complaining. Because all of those issues are in fact present. You might take this as me saying the game is horrible, but that isn't the case. Cyberpunk simply lacks in execution. The story may be underwhelming but there are still moments where it catches your interest. Side quests, even the small ones (called Gigs), tend to be of good quality. Even if many Gigs are glorified fetch quests the dialogue and the like built around them tend to be a little better than average. There is enough variety to keep things from getting too bland and repetitive. While the city isn't revolutionary in its detail or interactions it is still a fun backdrop for the game. When you take a quest in which you are not too under leveled, there is a satisfactory level of gameplay options. Cyberpunk simply doesn't excel at anything. It isn't a great game. And bug fixes cannot change a story with a lack of vision or core gameplay mechanics. But it still is a good game that is worth playing.

8/10

photomode_20012021_214904.png


photomode_20012021_223429.png
photomode_19012021_143515.png
photomode_20012021_215715.png
 
Last edited:

Flogger23m

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 19, 2009
Messages
11,612
Project Wingman

What happens when a single person decides to make a game out of nostalgia and passion? Typically a disaster. What we have here is the rare exception. Inspired by the bygone era of flight shooters, notably Ace Combat, an individual decided to recreate a game similar to the PS1/PS2 era flight shooter genre largely by himself. What resulted was a surprisingly solid game. As a preface, this game was largely made by a single individual that grew to a handful of developers and contributors. It received some money from an Epic grant, had a low key Kickstarter and was published by Humble Games. I can't imagine the total they received was very much and the game is without a doubt a budget title that retails for under half the price of a typical AAA game.

Project Wingman is a flight shooter, which means it lends itself to more arcadey style gameplay. The series this most closely resembles would be Ace Combat and to a lesser extent HAWX 1/2 (themselves Ace Combat clones). It is not a flight simulator; you will have hundreds of missiles/weapons and are tasked with taking down dozens upon dozens of units per mission. Avionics, flight systems and weapon management isn't present. Weapons are essentially lock and shoot or point and shoot as is standard in the genre. Meaning this game is easy to pick up even if you are unfamiliar with flight games. It is best played with a controller although you can use a HOTAS or joystick if you have one. The game also supports VR. The lack of depth means you won't have trouble mapping the limited controls.

As mentioned, mechanically the game is simple yet offers a decent amount of diversity in weapon types. Unlike Ace Combat which typically gives you two weapon types in addition to your cannon, Project Wingman allows different aircraft to choose multiple additional weapons. The amount and type will depend on the aircraft. An F/A-18 will be able to carry 3-4 different types of weapons per mission as an example, while an F-4 2-3 types. This allows each aircraft to feel sufficiently specialized. Weapons will roughly mount to where they would in the real world, but is not exactly correct; seeing as this isn't a flight simulator that is expected. Weapon behavior itself is similar to Ace Combat/HAWX. You'll have standard all purpose missiles, multi lock air to air and air to ground missiles, longer range missiles, rockets of various sizes as well as bombs. Differences in weapon choice can add some replayability to each mission which is certainly a plus.

Projectwingman Screenshot 2021.01.27 - 00.32.23.38.png

Planes themselves fly fairly similar, which again is standard for the genre. An F-16 will be more nimble than an Su-25 but you'll still be able to use the Su-25 for air to air. There are enough differences to make the planes feel slightly different, although in general you'll want to opt for the multi role aircraft that aren't slow. The good news is you can safely take out a MIG-21 without being worried that it will be impossible to complete a mission. The plane variety itself is fairly nice, with around 20 or so aircraft. Notably, most modern European planes like the Eurofighter and Mirage 2000 are missing. Likewise, no F-22 or F-35 which is a let down. But there are still iconic fighters to use, like Su-27s, MIG-29s, F-15s and F-14s. All aircraft have cockpits, but detail is medicore as standard for the genre. For whatever reason aircraft don't use their real names in game, which is disappointing. Suffice to say, I did not feel like the roster was exceptionally limited.

Projectwingman Screenshot 2021.01.26 - 14.43.57.82.png

Enemy typing is industry standard and what you'd expect if you've been playing Ace Combat since 2001's Shattered Skies. Fighters, short range SAMs, short range AAA, ships, helicopters and defenseless bombers/ground targets are what you'll go up against. That being said I feel as if the game was too conservative in its approach. Long range SAM batteries are not present, meaning there is no hurdle or SEAD (Suppression of Enemy Air Defenses) gameplay. I feel like this is a missed opportunity as you fly toward a clump of enemies and attack them, rather than having an enemy unit type actively attacking you. Likewise, ground radars and AWACS (radar planes) are little more than glorified "shoot me" targets. It could've added another layer of complexity to the gameplay if enemy radars vectored enemy fighters to your position making things harder until they were knocked out. At the same time, enemy variety is still sufficient. Missions are a mix of air to air, air to ground, or multi type. The general gameplay loop is still fun. Use an air to air weapon to knock out a flight, switch to ground weapons to take out some vehicles, then turn around and knock out the fighters that might be chasing you. It is a formula that still holds up.

Projectwingman Screenshot 2021.01.22 - 01.08.49.37.png

The main game mode is the story based campaign. Once again, the story itself draws heavy inspiration from games like Ace Combat or Lethal Skies. A world wide calamity occurred in the past, which led to the rise of corporations, mercenaries and other conflicts. The story itself is fairly awful. I don't expect stellar writing from a budget project, but the story in Project Wingman is exceptionally bad. I would've preferred if the story and story related dialogue was removed from the game. The game throws numerous alliances, factions, and enemy squadrons at you so quickly that you can barely even tell who or why you're fighting. I appreciate that they decided to add some type of story but a more simple approach of two countries going to war would've been preferable if the delivery was going to be so poor. Dialogue related to the story and characters is best viewed as an assault one ones ears.

The other game mode is Conquest, which is essentially a rogue-like game mode. All the planes unlocked/bought in the campaign have no persistence here. You start with a basic MIG-21 and need to complete more generic missions without stories, each getting more difficult. As you progress you can purchase wingmen or better planes. Once you fail a mission that is game over, you must start over again. There are other modifiers you can play around with to change the gameplay but in general there is not anything different or unique over the campaign missions. Difficultly does get harder though. I manage to get to mission 6 before dying. As an extra mode you'll get a few hours out of it; although this depends on how much you like challenging gameplay. On the plus side, there is no story dialogue which is wonderful.

Projectwingman Screenshot 2021.01.27 - 00.55.24.02.png

Sound wise the game has a decent sound track. It is certainly good enough to carry the game. Once again, you'll hear that it takes heavy inspiration from similar titles in the genre. Sound effects themselves are slightly lackluster. Voice acting is understandably not very good. Thankfully, the "radio sound effect" seems to be strong so often times you can tune out the actual dialogue.

Graphically the game is sufficient but clearly not up to par with bigger budget games. Compared to Ace Combat 7, which uses the same game engine, it looks antiquated. Which is expected given the budget/team size difference. Planes have decent detail. Explosion effects are one of the high points with large amounts of debris flying out of downed planes. Terrain wise the game looks lackluster. Plane contrails and missile smoke look decent. Overall atmospheric lighting isn't the greatest. Although expecting top end graphics from this game isn't realistic.

From a bug perspective the game is surprisingly stable. I had zero crashes, no frame rate drops, no obvious mission triggering bugs, no AI planes flying into the ground. The game seems to be more bug free than many big budget titles.

Projectwingman Screenshot 2021.01.21 - 21.21.12.12.png

Overall Project Wingman is simply a fun game. It takes a conservative approach, likely out of necessity due to a limited budget, but still manages to round out the basic gameplay. It is simple to get into, works, and offers solid gameplay for those looking to play a flight shooter. I thoroughly recommend it if you're looking for a flight shooter. Just keep your expectations in check; this is a budget game with a budget price.

7/10
 
Last edited:

M76

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 12, 2012
Messages
11,970
Dishonored (2012)

Dishonored-PC-Version-Full-Game-Free-Download-2019.jpg


This game was in my backlog virtually since it was released in 2012. I think the problem was that the art style was too similar to Fable III, and I still had PTSD About that in 2012. So I kind of shied away from playing this game.
So why now? To be honest I always intended to revisit the game, and also the second part which also sits in my backlog since its respective release date.

I just needed a reason to play it, which was presented to me when someone suggested that Dishonored is a better stealth game as Cyberpunk 2077. So now I had to see that for myself. Is it better though? Now what would be the fun in revealing that right away? You shall have to read on to find out.

So the first thing that stands out about the game to me is how dated it looks. I had to double check the release date, because I couldn't believe that this is a 2012 game. Same year as Mass Effect 3, Far Cry 3, Max Payne 3, a year of threes that was, but this game looks more like a game from the mid 2000s.

What I also found weird is the character design. I'm not sure if this is intentional and the game is supposed to be set in an alien world, or the designers simply sucked at their jobs, but all the characters look like aliens. Exaggerated features, elongated limbs and bodies. They don't look human to me at all.

The game also gives off a strong Half-Life 2 vibe. The level design, and some of the enemy types are almost out of that game. Probably only different enough to avoid a lawsuit.

The story was pretty average, it's just good enough to keep you interested, but not winning any awards for originality or its clever twists. But this is already more than Cyberpunk2077 can say for itself, so this is not a diss, just an observation. Another thing familiar from Half Life is the mute hero. Which I'm not a fan of. It worked in the first Half Life, but I don't think it's an idea worth copying.

I won't bore anyone with a synopsis of the story, I'll just quickly move on to the gameplay. This is a stealth game by trade, and everything is designed around that in it. You can use guns and a sword to fight, but both feel clumsy. I'd rather just reload my game when I accidentally broke stealth, not because I could not defeat enemies, but because it's not fun to fight in the game in the open. And the number of people you kill contributes to whether you get the dark or the light ending. I managed to get the good ending despite going full berserk a few times when I lost my patience.

So how good is stealth? Is it better than CP2077, Yes and No. Yes it is better, because the levels are designed with stealth in mind, and nothing else. And that's much easier in a game that is not open world. But in terms of stealth mechanics it is not better, roughly the same, the AI even tips it in favor of CP2077, sounds weird right? But the AI of dishonored is quite terrible. You stand face to face with an enemy NPC and if you move into cover they'll say "Must've been rats". While sometimes they'll instantly notice you from a mile away and go full alert at once. Overall the stealth is pretty easy. The difficulty setting affects both stealth and combat, but I didn't want to touch it as I felt combat was just right on Normal, I wished Stealth was harder. It would've been good if it was separated from combat.

There are also purchasable weapon upgrades and equipment, but I didn't really feel the difference after buying them. You also can acquire magical powers with runes that you find hidden around maps. I'm not a fan of magic so I mostly ignored that only used the teleport because it makes traversing maps much easier. It even helps with stealth but that almost felt like cheating to use it on the hapless NPCs so I did so sparingly.

I liked the level design, every map is different enough that you don't get bored. Only the final mission was kind of a disappointment as it was the easiest mission of the game almost. After figuring out how to enter the stronghold it was a light breeze. Every other map that came before was more challenging, and there isn't even a bossfight at the end.

What is also commendable although I'm not interested in that sort of thing, is that the game allows for a completely pacifist playthrough. You are not forced to kill anyone, even for key targets there is always a way to spare them but still complete the mission successfully. But the pacifist way doesn't necessarily mean the most moral playthrough, as you must stand by as NPCs murder other NPCs. You can't intervene. It could be an interesting challenge as a second play, but not for me. The game is not that good to play it again, especially right away. But it was good enough to give Dishonored 2 a second chance too, if I don't change my mind by tomorrow.

+​

  • Stealth Gameplay
  • Level design
  • Pacifist option

-​

  • Dated graphics
  • Weird, uncanny looking people
  • Clumsy melee and gun fighting
  • Less than 9 hours to finish
  • Last mission was the easiest
  • Ending cinematic was very underwhelming

Scores​

Graphics/Realization: 4/10
Story/Atmoshpere: 6/10
Gameplay/Controls: 8/10
Overall impression: 7/10

Not the worst way to waste 9 hours.
 
Last edited:

cybereality

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Mar 22, 2008
Messages
7,258
I beat The Order 1886 on PS4. I loved the game, the graphics still hold up 6 years later as some of the best I've seen. Story was pretty engaging as well.

I'm a bit sad at the bad initial reviews for the game, that I hesitated to play it for so long. Sometimes I'm not sure what reviewers are thinking.
 

Comixbooks

Fully [H]
Joined
Jun 7, 2008
Messages
16,822
I beat The Order 1886 on PS4. I loved the game, the graphics still hold up 6 years later as some of the best I've seen. Story was pretty engaging as well.

I'm a bit sad at the bad initial reviews for the game, that I hesitated to play it for so long. Sometimes I'm not sure what reviewers are thinking.

Damn always wanted to play that one.
 

J Macker

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jan 25, 2001
Messages
10,171
I finished FC5 a couple of weeks ago. Didn't collect everything, but got a fair bit. The fishing is really tough for me and I don't see the appeal.
I really enjoyed the graphics, they were amazing.

The gameplay was also quite good, but the entire cult vibe rubbed me the wrong way. I guess it's good exposure to see how some crazies think.
I might go back and do the add-ons since I got the game as a bundle through steam. I will also likely buy and play FC4 since it's supposed to be pretty good.

Overall, I feel like it was excellent value for <$20.
 

ghostwich

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Sep 10, 2014
Messages
1,932
I finished FC5 a couple of weeks ago. Didn't collect everything, but got a fair bit. The fishing is really tough for me and I don't see the appeal.
I really enjoyed the graphics, they were amazing.

The gameplay was also quite good, but the entire cult vibe rubbed me the wrong way. I guess it's good exposure to see how some crazies think.
I might go back and do the add-ons since I got the game as a bundle through steam. I will also likely buy and play FC4 since it's supposed to be pretty good.

Overall, I feel like it was excellent value for <$20.
Of the "recent" (and standalone) Far Cry games, I would rank them:
  1. Far Cry 3
  2. Far Cry 4
  3. Far Cry Blood Dragon
  4. Far Cry 5
  5. Far Cry Primal
  6. Far Cry New Dawn
Surprisingly, they are all pretty nuanced and offer unique moments/mechanics. The FC4 and FC5 DLCs are quite big and could almost qualify as their own "game."
 

M76

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 12, 2012
Messages
11,970
I beat The Order 1886 on PS4. I loved the game, the graphics still hold up 6 years later as some of the best I've seen. Story was pretty engaging as well.

I'm a bit sad at the bad initial reviews for the game, that I hesitated to play it for so long. Sometimes I'm not sure what reviewers are thinking.
I skipped that game for the same reason.
 

cybereality

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Mar 22, 2008
Messages
7,258
I really liked New Dawn. FC3 was definitely the best, but I think they are all good (I even liked Primal, though I would say it was the worst).
 

ghostwich

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Sep 10, 2014
Messages
1,932
I really liked New Dawn. FC3 was definitely the best, but I think they are all good (I even liked Primal, though I would say it was the worst).
I've really got to get back to Primal, I gave up because the resource requirements were beginning to get a bit too grindy for my liking. New Dawn kind of feels like that too.
 

cybereality

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Mar 22, 2008
Messages
7,258
I skipped that game for the same reason.
I looked at the reviews after I beat the game, and the main complaint was that it was on rails.

Well it's a cinematic game with third person shooting elements. Yes, the action is mostly scripted and there are lots of cut-scenes, but that's the type of game it is. Not everything has to be open world.
 

M76

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 12, 2012
Messages
11,970
I've really got to get back to Primal, I gave up because the resource requirements were beginning to get a bit too grindy for my liking. New Dawn kind of feels like that too.
New Dawn to Far Cry is what Breakpoint was to Ghost Recon. Except new dawn never got fixed unlike breakpoint. It still has weapon and enemy tiers and infinite grind. I tried to play it with trainers to skip the grind and still couldn't be bothered to finish it.
 
Last edited:

ghostwich

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Sep 10, 2014
Messages
1,932
New Dawn to Far Cry is what Breakpoint was to Ghost Recon. Except new dawn never got fixed unlike breakpoint. It still has weapon and enemy tiers and infinite grind. I tried to play it with trainers to skip the grind and still couldn't be bothered to finish it.
There's a fairly comprehensive mod... erm... launcher? I initially looked into it to fix the FOV when riding vehicles (I know it was this way since FC3 but for some reason it feels so much worse in New Dawn), but it has a lot of other mods which change balance, etc., nearly everything.

https://www.nexusmods.com/farcrynewdawn/mods/5

I noticed the grind early on and the enemy levels (i.e. why my headshots do nothing to enemies). I mean it's interesting to mix RPG-ish elements into a Far Cry game (which come to think of it makes it feel a bit like Fallout), but I wasn't sold enough to sink more time into it. I might return, and mods help.

(And now that I'm looking at this again... looks like the same dev team has mods for 4 and 5: https://www.nexusmods.com/farcry4/mods/80 and https://www.nexusmods.com/farcry5/mods/31. Very interesting.)
 
  • Like
Reactions: M76
like this
Joined
Apr 24, 2020
Messages
5
I've just finished Devinity Original Sins 2 and it's great. I'm so gald I spent so much time on it
Btw, tried playing with a friend but it's not the same. It's better to play alone. RPG after all
 

M76

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 12, 2012
Messages
11,970

Dishonored 2 (2016)​

dishonored2.jpg


I've pre ordered this game. I'm not joking, It took almost 5 years until I finally completed it. I tried playing it when it got released, but it had some weird graphical bug that made it look awful at that time, so I stopped playing after the first level. Then it completely fell to the sideline and I lacked motivation to try it again.

The game feels more like a 2.0 than an actual 2. What I mean by that is that the game hasn't evolved much. It feels the same, exactly the same. Even the main plot is almost the same.

The story​

The story was just average in Dishonored, but this time it seems like Swiss cheese to me: It stinks and it's full of holes. I didn't enjoy the story. There was no real intrigue, there was no mystery, not even any interesting characters. And since the plot is again about a coup, it all felt regurgitated, we have been here before. It's one thing to do an unoriginal story, but doing the same unoriginal story twice? What can I say to that. This empire seems all too easy to take over by anyone, and all the people are all too eager to betray their empress.

What actually is different in the game, is that now you can choose who you play as. Although this does not change much in how you play, the changes are purely in dialogue. You can play again as Corvo the royal bodyguard. Or as Emily the empress. Since I had my fill of Corvo in the first game I choose Emily.

Which also leads to a mistake in the game. Since everyone knows your face you wear a mask. But I have no idea what is the purpose of the mask as all guards and overseers will attack you on sight even in public places. So this is completely pointless.

There is also the option to play without magical powers if you want. Well I wanted, which is not a popular option as less than 3% of players have finished the game this way. Magic is very prevalent in the story, it's not as grounded as the first game. Yes that had some magic and witchcraft too but it wasn't the main plot.

One more thing about the plot, is that the game warned me about playing in high chaos, that it will make your character cynical and the ending very dark. Well, it didn't seem that dark to me in the end. If you are going out of your way to hype up the path as dark, you'd better put your writing skills where your mouth is at.

Enough about the story, let's examine the gameplay.​

The enemy AI is now faster to detect you and can detect you from much further, which makes sneaking more interesting. But otherwise the soldiers are as dumb as ever. But there is a new enemy type, a mechanical soldier, that has eyes on it's back, and almost unkillable by conventional means. So that's great. You can't kill it, and you can't sneak past it. If their goal was to make the game annoying congratulations, they succeeded. Thankfully this monstrosity only appears on a few levels, but even that is too much.

On a positive note, the graphics is much better than of Dishonored. It actually looks good now, except for the character models, those still look awkward and hatchet faced. Emily in the promotional poster and on pictures looks quite beautiful but the in-game model has a jaw like Robert Z'Dar. Thankfully you don't see it often, except on the loading screen. And of course all characters have weird proportions as in the first game.

The level design also got worse. Instead of being semi open, with many different routes to your destination, maps are more linear now. The only choice you have is whether you rewire or disable walls of lights. There are rarely options to go around them anymore. And internal maps are now designed like Doom levels. Imagine three interconnected cul de sacs. Your goal is in the third, but first you need to go into the first to get item A to unlock door in the second dead end area, where you can turn on power to be able to reach the third. Of course this is an oversimplification, but the basic concept of all maps is like this in Dishonored 2.

There was one interesting level, which I both hated and liked. I hated it because I hate magic, especially when it's out of place, and this certainly felt out of place. There was a map where you could travel back and forth in time, and it made for some interesting puzzles. But it was very ex-machina that we got the ability to time travel just out of nowhere.

+​

  • Stealth Gameplay
  • Environment graphics
  • Pacifist option
  • No magic option

-​

  • Weird, uncanny looking people
  • Annoying new enemy types
  • Lacking level design
  • Ending cinematic was very underwhelming
  • The touted dark and cynical ending wasn't that dark or cynical

Scores​

Graphics/Realization: 7/10
Story/Atmoshpere: 3/10
Gameplay/Controls: 8/10
Overall impression: 6/10

All things considered I did not hate the game, it was a fun game, just slightly worse than the first. Mainly thanks to the level design and the weak and uninteresting plot.
 
Top