- cross-posted to:
- gaming@beehaw.org
- cross-posted to:
- gaming@beehaw.org
You must log in or register to comment.
This is such a weird take because Cyberpunk’s storytelling was a series of Grand Theft Auto phone calls occasionally interspersed with “UR DYING V, I’M KEANU REEVES AND IM GONNA TAKE UR BODY LOL”. There wasn’t anything interesting about Cyberpunk’s storytelling. I believe a Bethesda game could be more boring than that, but it doesn’t retroactively make Cyberpunk great as a result.
Felt the same way about it. The plot device of the character potentially becoming Keanu really broke all motivation for me. Why would I complete the main plot if each mission made the infestation worse? I made this character, why would I be interested in watching them become someone else’s Gary Stue? I wanted to be my Gary, not theirs.
The story would have been much improved by dropping Johnny
MnemonicSilverhands and instead having the partner, whose name escapes me because I only got to know him through 2 missions and a 30 second montage of us getting to know each other, as the ride along personality. Instead of him taking you over, he’s fading away and you have to save him.Throw in a heroic sacrifice from your semi AI partner at the end or a plot twist him into a villain Tyler Durdening your ass while you sleep and it could have been something magical.
Both are behind Baldurs Gate if we’re making comparisons.
I’ve been seeing a ton of cyberpunk ads since starfield was released just shitting on starfield and talking up cyberpunk. This seems like a smear campaign. Frankly if your a fan of sci Fi and video games. You should probably try both when they’re on sale.
Cyberpunk put ALL their money into marketing, and they’re heavily investor-pressured into showing the game is better received than it actually is. I still firmly believe that a large percentage of the praise is astroturfing. Especially when they downvote everything negative without a response
Ok here’s a response. I pirated cyberpunk on release fully expecting it to be buggy. I enjoyed bits of it at the time but I stopped because it was too buggy and unpolished.
This is CD Project Red’s track record, but somehow everyone forgot about how bad Witcher 3 was. I expected this 2.0 update eventually and I’m glad they started another marketing push, so that I can know it’s time for the game to actually be ‘done’. Obviously they paid streamers to show the game, that’s no secret. But also it looks genuinely better, just like Witcher 3. So I’ll probably actually buy it next time it goes on sale, after pirating it to see if it’s worth it now.
Meanwhile Starfield looks exactly like the milktoast Skyrim reskin I expected it to be, with nothing really standing out. Bethesda has been slowly comodifying their games since Morrowind -> Oblivion then followed an obvious template since Skyrim. It really shows in their boring designs.
Cyberpunk was trying to do too much, but Starfield isn’t doing enough.
Fair point about starfield, I haven’t played it yet but have heard many negative things.
But your point about cyberpunk, in response to me is “It was too buggy to enjoy on release and I haven’t played the late, updated version” , but you’re glad it’s being marketed on every platform?
That doesn’t do it any favours 😅
I pirated it. It worked, I didn’t run into any bugs like 1.0, and I had fun, on my steam deck no less. I didn’t finish and I might go back to it at some point, but that doesn’t say as much for the game as it does my attention span. I rarely finish games. I’d go as far as to recommend it now based on what I played.
I maintain that I’m glad they were able to fix it and market the improvements earnestly. They made good on their initially bad project, and that should be applauded.
Mass Effect and Dragon Age makes Cyberpunks story telling feel ancient as well in my very firm opinion.
You’re welcome to your opinion but those are some old games. Are you sure it’s better or is it nostalgia?
Starfield bad. Cyberpunk good
