By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Cyberpunk 2077 Review Thread | 83 OC, 87 Meta

 

Predict which range Cyberpunk's meta score will fall in?

98-100 4 4.94%
 
95-97 5 6.17%
 
92-94 28 34.57%
 
89-91 21 25.93%
 
86-88 9 11.11%
 
83-85 5 6.17%
 
80-82 3 3.70%
 
Less than 80 6 7.41%
 
Undecided 0 0%
 
Total:81
shikamaru317 said:

Anyway, I really hope that alot of critics re-review this game on both last-gen console and PC after some patches, and review the Xbox Series and PS5 versions separately once they release. Would love to see more fair reviews that aren't based solely on performance and bugs. Best game I've played all year personally, in spite of the bugs. Currently a 9/10 game from the 20+ hours I've played so far, and I see the potential of a 9.5/10 game after the upcoming year of free DLC, patches, Xbox Series and PS5 optimizations, and the 2 paid expansions.

Imho, at the very least, 1 or 2 years from now we will see "cyberpunk: 2077 (incertname) edition" whit all DLC included. At this point, maybe, "re-review" for this game will come, maybe re-reviews will come even sooner.



Around the Network
shikamaru317 said:

Anyway, I really hope that alot of critics re-review this game on both last-gen console and PC after some patches, and review the Xbox Series and PS5 versions separately once they release. Would love to see more fair reviews that aren't based solely on performance and bugs. Best game I've played all year personally, in spite of the bugs. Currently a 9/10 game from the 20+ hours I've played so far, and I see the potential of a 9.5/10 game after the upcoming year of free DLC, patches, Xbox Series and PS5 optimizations, and the 2 paid expansions.

A fair review is a review on how the game was on launch.

Sure a game can be revisited to discuss how it is months after release, but metacritic won't be changed by it. Driveclub and Halo Master Chief Collection are two clear examples of this, No Man Sky and others as well.

Fair would be CDPR not releasing a broken game charging full price and asking for second chance.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

Mummelmann said:

What everyone needs to take into consideration when viewing the whole situation is what role CDProjekt has taken and been given in the industry today. They have made a whole, huge thing out of taking the crown as the one AAA developer that doesn't end up in the many pitfalls of the industry at large, such as unfinished games, forced wokeness, tacked-on gimmicks, and unethical business models paired with other anti-consumer practices. This is part of what has propelled their popularity, and they've played along really well with it and ran with it for some time, heads held high (by rights at that).

For them to release a fairly broken game on 8th gen consoles, terribly optimized for PC, and even refuse reviewers to show their own gameplay until patches were in place, and even go so far as to hide console issues up to and into release date is unacceptable. I love them to bits, especially since they've been something of an antidote to many toxic features and issues that arose in the 7th gen, as well as their incredible technical and artistic prowess coming from what was a small team and company, to begin with. I also love GOG and its approach to consumers, with no DRM, decent pricing, and great overall integration of features and tech. This is precisely what my disappointment stems from; their active role as the paragon of healthy practices in the industry has now come to an end, even if it could be only temporary. TW 3 was a well-placed and well-deserved kick to the collective nuts of the industry at large, but now they've gone and kicked their own nuts and in part legitimized what they previously spoke fervently against, and this has to be addressed (in a reasonable manner though).

I will point out when my darlings make mistakes; many circumstances revolving around the release of Cyberpunk 2077 are dire and easily deserving of criticism. I still love CDProjekt; but I don't love how they've handled this for now. I think many are in the same boat, let's not pretend that their critics are simply "haters" without grounds for their opinions.

They never deserved that reputation to begin with, to be honest. This is coming from someone who had followed them long before The Witcher 3 came out, who played The Witcher 2 on Xbox 360 and who played The Witcher 1 (almost to completion, which is saying a lot) before they got the super mainstream appeal they now have. Everything about their reputation was mostly because there was a weirdly large bandwagon surrounding the release of one game, and not even an original IP or an entry in a long-running franchise that was mostly standalone, but a title which was the third in a game series that focused heavily on plot. There's really not been anything like it in gaming history, the huge gap in popularity between what they had with Witcher 2 and Witcher 3, for third party developers at least. The closest that I can think of is maybe Final Fantasy VII but that at least was a standalone game from a company that would go on to handcraft many masterpieces that generation. What that games reputation did for Squaresoft (and really only did it in the West, mind you, as they were already huge in Japan) was largely deserved, what Witcher 3 did for CD Projekt Red absolutely wasn't. Don't get me wrong, their reputation had slowly been building up, with The Witcher being an absolute technical showcase for PC's for quite a while during the end of the mid 2000's, and The Witcher 2 being one of the last big WRPGs to be both a technical showcase for the 360 as well as a console-exclusive to the console, which garnered a lot of attention to it I think. But this is discarding the fact that The Witcher played like ass, aged much worse aesthetically than other PC technical showcases from around the time, and The Witcher 2 was straddling the "RPG-lite" and "Action game" genres a little too hard considering how half-baked both portions ended up being (especially on the action front, despite taking up most of the games gameplay). 

Now, we can talk all day about how great GoG is. And it is a great service. But, as a developer, was that huge boost in popularity deserved? Absolutely not. They released one game, and frankly as good as it was it felt like a lot of the hype surrounding it was just because the Playstation 4 and Xbox One console libraries got off to such a slow start. It is like you said, except where I'd diverge is I'd ask the question "If one developer's hype mostly comes from how mediocre and disappointing other developers' games were, is that hype really because of how great that developer is to begin with?". That's not to say The Witcher 3 isn't an enduring and charming game, it is absolutely both of those things. But it is just a much, much better version of what Dragon Age Inquisition was in 2014: a game that signified some level of care was finally being put into triple A products to not make a wholly disappointing experience, only for Inquisition to be forgotten as soon as it won a game award. Witcher 3 is obviously much, much better than that, but I think a lot of it's reputation comes from the same idea. This generation largely sucked for big WRPGs, not because companies stopped making them, but because the ones that did sucked at their job. Doesn't make CD Projekt Red a messiah or prophet. 



shikamaru317 said:
Barozi said:

Metacritic down to 87.

I see Quarter to Three is still active posting their usual troll scores.

Yikes. How does meta still accept their reviews? Almost every review I've ever seen from them was way below the average for a game, it's clear that they give low scores just for clickbait.

Statistically speaking, there necessarily should be a few reviewers with way below the average reviews.

Even if you are right, why does this bother you, exactly? I'm sure a lot of the 10s are just hype machine reviews that are in bed with developers or want to prop up a certain console etc. but I don't see you complaining about these.

I guess that's because when it comes to answering game criticism, going beyond the "nope, you are nitpicking and biased, I win, bye bye" is just too much mental gymnastics for most people.

Not that that's necessarily wrong, by the way. The effort I mean. It's just video games, after all.



 

 

 

 

 

shikamaru317 said:
Barozi said:

Metacritic down to 87.

I see Quarter to Three is still active posting their usual troll scores.

Yikes. How does meta still accept their reviews? Almost every review I've ever seen from them was way below the average for a game, it's clear that they give low scores just for clickbait.

Then write a 10 page essay going into what Cyberpunk stands for, with numerous examples from literature and movies, to explain where the game fails at being Cyberpunk. And explore the contradictions and failings in the story. Seems like a lot of effort for click bait, and there aren't even ads on the page. He does admit he's overly critical in taking the game mechanics under a loop.

Maybe it’s unfair to raise these objections to Cyberpunk 2077. CD Projekt is just doing the same things everyone else is doing. It’s not their job to fix the medium. So in that regard, Cyberpunk 2077 is fine as yet another example of RPGs and open worlds. If you don’t mind these conventions, if you can look past CD Projekt’s lack of ambition, if you’re willing to accept a AAA release with D-level quality assurance, if you can accept the state of these unimaginative game designs, you’ll get your solid forty to fifty hours of open-worlding in a beautiful setting.

However with all that has come to light recently after all the promises of a next-gen open world RPG, 2 out of 5 stars hardly feels like trolling. Ever consider all the other reviews are way above average with the 50 to 100 scale. Plus if he always score low, nothing out of the ordinary?

It's easy to blame CDPR now for the mess, yet the general cheerleader gaming press have just as much fault in this release. Gushing previews and accepting all the conditions set by CDPR for reviewing the game without any investigative journalism. Acknowledging the bugs assuming they will be fixed day one. And now we get, maybe the base consoles are simply too old for the game...






Around the Network

"Lack of ambition" is a lie, though. You can like or dislike it but to call this a project with a lack of ambition? Common... If at all they had too much of it especially If it comes to the technical achievements which ended in a fiasco especially on the old consoles.



They have made one decent game, no idea where this cult following came from. Played the first on release, was ok at best, and the sequel was pure garbage. They are not even remotely a decent developer, good at best.



crissindahouse said:

"Lack of ambition" is a lie, though. You can like or dislike it but to call this a project with a lack of ambition? Common... If at all they had too much of it especially If it comes to the technical achievements which ended in a fiasco especially on the old consoles.


He refers to the game systems there, which he explains in detail in the above paragraphs. But true no lack of ambition rather too much ambition in the graphics department pushed out all the ambition regarding promised game play.

shikamaru317 said:

I've been following Quarter to Three for about 10 years now. In that time I've seen them give ridiculously low scores to probably 2 dozen different games that I loved, every one far below the critical consensus. We're talking 2, 3, and 4/10 reviews on games with a meta average over 80, sometimes even on games with a meta average above 90. That's more than just tough grading, Gamespot, Edge, and Giant Bomb are tough graders, what Quarter to Three does goes far beyond that.

Reviews are personal opinions in the end, what counts is whether the text matches the score and vice versa. From pretty much all the 10/10 reviews I did not get the impression that was the case. This reads like a 2/5, guy is hard to please, wants something new, gets the same stuff in a shiny buggy new coat. And of course if you're looking for something new, you'll come away disappointed most of the time.

Strong opinion for sure, I also don't agree with the review of RDR2, 5 out of 5, it was good, not that good. For RDR2 he looks past the dated straight jacket mission design. Inconsistent just like everyone else.

Anyway just like you, he's not someone I would look to for game advice, not matching my tastes. The part about what Cyberpunk is was an interesting read though. Btw he gave NMS 1 star, still double the score for Cyberpunk!



shikamaru317 said:

Yeah, I also find it odd how much he loved RDR2. I was a massive fan of RDR1 (still tied with Witcher 3 for my favorite game of all time) who was let down by RDR2, so seeing him give it a 5/5 when he has given probably 2 dozen games that I have loved 1 or 2 stars was strange to see. I'm just glad that CD Projekt didn't let me down the same way Rockstar did with RDR2, while Cyberpunk isn't quite as good as Witcher 3 from what I have played so far (could change once I get to more of the main story and more of the side quests), it is still very good, best game I have played that released this year (though I still need to play Tsushima and Assassin's Creed once I finish Cyberpunk). 

Same, I'm looking forward to playing it as well in the future. Now I know what to expect, closer to Death Stranding / Detroit become human (story pacing wise) rather than GTA / RDR2 where the story is more of an interruption to the real fun.



Wish I had time to play more. I’ve been doing tons of side stuff and police work, have barely touched the main story. I love how deep the combat and skill tree are, coupled with the mods and body enhancements you can get, it opens up basically endless amounts of play styles and builds. I recently switched to a melee style but I went back because the gun combat feels so good.

Still need to get into the crafting more. I guess you open up more crafting options by buying blueprints?