Why does the game have to explore it for her? Does it need to spell everything out? Why can't those themes just be a by-product from experiencing the world, instead of being the main focus?

Not every story/plot needs to have a great philosophical journey and message, while plastering you with in-your-face social commentary. Some writers prefer to tell a more personal and gritty story, with the greater themes of purpose in the world being subtle and in the background. The reason "...all you're left with is the unpleasantness..." is because that's how the world is intended to feel. It's not meant to be a journey of hope and change, or finding purpose. It's about surviving and rebelling.

Again, this reviewer was searching for things in this game that were (probably) never intended to be there. It's not the kind of experience they wanted, and instead of judging it by what it does offer, they've given their own subjective viewpoint.

It doesn't have to but that makes it superficial set dressing, just like she said.

She doesn't ask for it to be spelled out, she asks for the game / characters to recognize the superficial world and react to it or at least acknowledge it. What are they rebelling against if none of these issues are touched on?

She also said she was disappointed in the main story and the side quests save the game. "The side quests and the characters they showcase are the shining beacon through the neon-soaked bleakness of Night City, and they give you room to explore the best the core RPG mechanics have to offer. These are what carried me through an otherwise disappointing experience." Not very different from TW3.

Yeah, it feels weird he complaining about things like the game having a quest honoring or mentioning the day of the dead, or other things like that. Feels completely out of place and nonsensical. SJW sure is a cancer.

But other than that( though i didn't read it 100%) it feels like a decent review.

Again context.

my experience is that there are aspects of the game that feel lost in translation, invoking cultures that aren't adequately explored or contextualized. Characters in one side quest use the word "ofrenda" as if it means "funeral" when it's actually a particular kind of altar primarily for Day of the Dead--it's unclear to me if this is a translation issue or an overall misunderstanding of Mexican customs, since you do put together an altar during the event that's being called "the ofrenda."

The complaint is not about the quest, or mentioning the day of the dead. She's questioning whether some things are lost in translation. Even weirder, funeral is the same word in English and Spanish, yet funeral translates to pogrzeb in Polish which translates to entierro in Spanish which translates to burial in English. Ofrenda translates to ofiara in Polish which translates to victim in English. Translation problem is likely.

As another example, you can go to a clothing store in Japantown and buy "yukata" that are just wrap shirts bearing only the slightest resemblance to real yukata. It's not that Cyberpunk always gets everything wrong in its incorporation of a variety of cultures and backgrounds but that the world is so big and unruly that I never knew what I would find around any corner or if I'd understand what the intent behind it was--I just grew to accept that whatever I did find, at least in terms of setting and worldbuilding, would likely be superficial.

The complaint or rather observation is about the lack of depth, using terms, words, images just because they look good / sound cool, without properly using them or proof reading the text/translation, further leading to the game feeling superficial. At least it's no where near call of duty level rewriting history, but either make up your own words or use/translate them correctly.


Perhaps she's too critical or thinks too much in terms of movie set building where everything generally does have a purpose to the tiniest detail in the background.


I don't really want to defend this particular review, I haven't played the game yet either so I have no idea whether she has a valid point. What irks me are the kneejerk reactions to an 'out of line' score, while the actual review is well written and backed up with clear examples. I learned a lot more about what to expect and what not to expect from this review than from most of the gushing 100 reviews.

(I dared take a peek into the comments on that review, I should have known better lol. Where on Earth do people get the idea the reviewer is offended by the game?)

I always skip any 100/100 review for games I'm interested in - from my experience those are, more often than not, advertorials masquerading as reviews.

I usually read few reviews in the middle and then go directly to the bottom to find well constructed reviews that have usefull info on problems the game has - a lot of times I don't agree or don't care about their objections, but I know what to expect (or not) if I decide to go for it.

I think even if they are being an "extreme SJW" it is a perfectly valid viewpoint to have as those kinds of things are important to a large amount of people. I don't agree with a lot of it, and I think a lot of people go overboard with it. But, I understand why people care about that, and think those things are super important and can detract from the experience or artistic experience.

I would also argue, that since this game in particular is a dystopia. It is a critique on some form of government and inherently is political. And thus opens itself up even more to criticism on how it handles and presents it's politics. 

Ofcourse some people might not care about that at all and care about other things. Which is also A-ok :). 

Yep, agreed. I wouldn't call them reviews, they're more like a sales pitch. Good to get you excited and to build up the hype, but it doesn't have anything to do with the critique part of a review. Review: an article making a critical reconsideration and summary. Most of the 100s don't go beyond the summary part.

And that's exactly how you use a review, decide what's important to you and what's a minor issue or not relevant to your experience. Hence scores are pretty useless. It's the same when buying anything else.

No, the reviewer seems offended/troubled not by if something was lost in translation, but that he "appropriated" aspects of other cultures to be used in the game on topics the reviewer didn't like, and thus he brings it up as if it is something negative. That's why he brings up the translation part. He can't "believe" that someone would bring other people cultures into the game that the developer/setting isn't a part of, as if that is something awful to do.

Again, I do think the overall review is at least decent. The reviewer does bring up valid points in favor and against the game. But that part in which the reviewer bashes the game for no good reason, like the ones brought up here, seems superficial and stupid.It brings nothing to the table, and says nothing about the game, other than exclusively the view of the reviewer on something completely personal, that has no bearing on the quality of the game.That's what people got hung up, for better or worse.

Who else moved to New Zealand to play early

Why do we have to go through this ridiculous objective/subjective review discussion every single time a new big game is released? I don't understand what is so difficult about this? Reviews by their very nature are opinions, unless you're literally just listing technical details about the product you're giving your personal SUBJECTIVE opinion about the thing you're reviewing, exactly as its supposed to be. Different people can have vastly different experiences with the exact same situation they are faced with in games, whether its a side quest, a character they encounter, a specific storyline or gameplay element, so having review scores that vary wildly shouldn't be anything that out of the ordinary.

This really shouldn't be such a contentious topic, especially when its been talked to death for who knows how long now.