Cyberpunk CRPG

It doesn't, unfortunately. Another missed opportunity.

Wow, they managed to completely miss that?!

I thought those guys were fans...

Back in the old days we had only hitpoints then Call of Cthulhu came along and we had to watch our Sanity and that opened up so many options and Cyberpunk followed that up with Empathy (and Vampire the Masquerade with Humanity).

So there is nothing to prevent the player from putting on as much metal as possible?

That's definitely a missed opportunity and a major failure to represent the setting accurately.

Reading Gibson's novels it's clear that getting implants is traumatic -as it should be. Turning them into just another gear upgrade/level up is simply inexcusable.

The idea of losing your humanity is absolutely central to the genre. Without it all that is left is some noir scifi setting.

There are cyberpsychos in the game, but for the player, yeah, you can have as much chrome as you can afford.

The plot does involve the character losing themselves due to a particular implant, but even that doesn't really have any gameplay implications.

The Keanu Reeves thing I assume?

Johnny Silverhand was the iconic Rockerboy in Cyberpunk 2013 so unless they changed pen and paper lore there has to be some sort of AI twist involved or presumably some "ghost" (possibly some construct like Dix in the Neuromancer) because the character would have to be in his 90s otherwise.

I think they bit more than they could chew. These are just my first impressions but I went in with low expectations and it's even worse than I thought.

The lifepath thing should have been an origin just like in DAO and it's anything but. You get a short intro before being put on the main track and barely anything to show for it (save for a change of clothes). I've tried them all and the only one that does make sense is the Street one, Corpo being the worst of the bunch (too much of a wasted opportunity). Nomad is just pointless since you don't even get to have an outsider's outlook on Night City. They put so much hype on that aspect and in the end it feels as if all characters end up on the Street kid path.

Calling your character V is cool since it can stand for pretty much anything and has a nice ring to it but having a fully voiced main character kills roleplaying. There is a reason why FNV allows the player to come up with very different characters and why F4 is just about playing a sarcastic prick/concerned parent. That really hurt ME Andromeda and it's the same here. V's voice sounds a bit too good natured if you want to play a freak and after trying both male and female voices in game all I can say is that the female does a much better job. It's still an interpretation and it will limit the roleplaying but personally I feel it works a lot better.

First person gameplay is supposed to be immersive but it also makes the whole character creation process almost entirely pointless. Plus apparently in a game where appearances are of the utmost importance you can't edit your character's face and hairdo once the game has begun. Basically you can replace your entire body with metal and chrome but you can't get a new haircut or some facial surgery (not to mention a boob job or a sex change when the character creator puts so much emphasis on gender to begin with).

Making a big wide open world is great but it's a pretty shallow pond. Don't get me wrong the world is very pretty but you rarely get to interact with NPCs on the street and it feels a bit jarring because you really want to go out there and get immersed in this world. It's all a big show and the lack of interactivity really hurts immersion. If you're just skimming it's simply amazing but if you're looking closer and try to get involved it's just alienating. Hell, GTA feels more alive and reactive than that world.

It doesn't seem like choices really matter. Ironically you're set up on rails and can't get away from them. Everything feels scripted and very narrow. It's like playing pen and paper with a control freak who won't let you make any choice beyond what hair colour you want your character to have.

In comparison playing the Witcher 3 feels a lot more like playing an RPG than this one ever does. You may have some limited freedom when it comes to character creation it doesn't mean anything if the game is putting you on rails. It's just frustrating. I feel like I have to keep second guessing what the game wants me to do. Fallout 1 more than 20 years ago offered more options to deal with any given situations.

It pisses me off because the game gets so many things right when it comes to visuals and ticks so many boxes. It nails the visual style and the codes of the genre but it just skips Empathy (interestingly enough there is room on the stat screen for another stat which makes me wonder if they had planned to include it before cutting it out of the game). There are so many things that are wrong about the game. The looting and crafting is tacky at best. It is just busywork and it takes away from the experience by reminding you that you're playing a game and making you switch guns all the time so much that you no longer care and probably won't even bother after a while because inventory management is just a pain.

It is a shallow and lifeless experience that feels at odds with the gorgeous visuals and striking representation. They hyped the "style over substance" phrase in their promotional content but that's basically how the Cyberpunk 2077 experience can best be summarised:

Spoiler:

It seems pretty obvious they ended up cutting too many corners to release the game.

There are so many failed opportunities it's barely a shadow of what it could have been and a constant reminder of how truly awesome a Cyberpunk game could be.

There are glitches and weird bugs galore but bugs aren't the problem. The root of the problem is the superficiality of the experience and unfortunately that is something that can't be fixed.

Unfortunately, I agree with everything you write. The illusion of choice falls apart fairly quickly, and most of the open-world content is just filler. I stopped playing when I found out about the save corruption, and though I know they fixed it, don't know when I'll get back to it to finish the story.

Damn, that sucks, Cara. :/ It was such a hyped game, and the few delays gave hope that they took the time to finish the game as they wanted it to be. But by your and Kana's comments, it seems they were long ways off from their goal. A distant hope is they use DLCs to implement the content they wanted to put in the game in the first place. :/

It goes too deep for that.

If it was just me I would chalk it down to my being a fan of the pen and paper game but unfortunately Kana and I are not the only ones.

In order to enjoy this game you have to lower your expectations in terms of roleplaying and take it as a superficial adventure with amazing visuals and simply enjoy the ride.

The problem is that they did promote the RPG aspects and these are lacking to say the least.

EDIT: Tri, have you ever played a pen and paper RPG session with a GM who couldn't go off the script?

Basically, it feels like all the bits were painstakingly rehearsed and prepared but whenever you want to do anything that wasn't planned for the GM breaks character and starts giving you an uncanny valley look so you decide to take pity on the poor sod and go back on the rails to get back into the game.

That's pretty much what we have to deal with here.

Sounds terrible.

In all fairness when it all falls into place it's pretty slick but if you step out of the path the illusion shatters and it really stretches your ability to suspend your disbelief.

Last but not least, the game is entirely in first person except for car segments (if you decide to change the camera) so that's something to keep in mind Sue.

Oh carp. First person means it's a no-go for me.

Unfortunately it's 100% first person.

Their logic is that you can get immersed in the world that way but I personally would have preferred a third person view. It's a bit pointless to get to create such detailed characters and yet never see them in action (a bit like with the Outer Worlds).

It really could have done with a third-person mode, but there are so many things that SHOULD have been in the game that aren't. I've never really liked first-person melee combat due to the lack of peripheral vision.

Another issue is that the game is really easy. My character is a net-runner, and I can crouch in a corner and eliminate an entire building full of enemies without even budging from my spot. It's fun feeling powerful, but, like... shouldn't the enemies organize a search of the building rather than just standing around waiting to die?

Also, while I was aware that vehicle customization was cut, I really wished it was still in. As it is, certain cars are just objectively better, and there is no point in using anything else (the Coyote trumps everything else). I've wanted an RPG that properly applied RPG mechanics to vehicles, and it would have worked well in this setting. Choose between electric or combustion engines, swap out your suspension for offroading, choose armour for the vehicle within the weight limits of your frame, suspension and engine, search through the various junk piles in the world for parts. Hell, why not outfit it with weapons?

Maybe it's just me. As it is, I see no reason not to just use fast travel.

I'm playing Darkest Dungeon and the Sims now, so I don't know when I'll get back to Cyberpunk. Knowing me, once I stop playing a game like this, I never return to it. It's a shame, because in some areas, the game really works. The save corruption thing really killed it for me.

Just let it rest, you should give it a year and see if you want to go back.

Personally I'm looking forward to Cyber Knights: Flashpoint (which I've backed) as the devs are really nice and the kind who keep pouring updates for their games years after they've been released.


Right now, I feel more like replaying the Shadowrun games or going back to Deus Ex.

This is the best piece I've read about this game:

https://www.npr.org/2020/12/22/948827323/in-cyberpunk-2077-the-only-truly-punk-move-is-not-to-play?t=1610198625330

Spoiler:

I haven't experienced more than the beginning of the game myself but I came away from that feeling almost the same.

There is a disconnect between the game as a typical action RPG/GTA like and the essence of what makes Cyberpunk stand out as a genre.

Cyberpunk shouldn't be about getting as much metal as possible, it should be about coming to terms with new technologies that are dehumanising and alienating (both on a physical and metaphysical level), it should be about finding a way to survive the dystopia without giving in to the system and more importantly maintain a sense of self in a world where all the limits are blurred and where everything is temporary and transient.

A videogame may not be the best medium to convey feelings of angst and the need for self introspection and the exploration of the limits of consciousness but shoving all these issues under the rug to focus on flashing neon lights is definitely not the way to go about making a cyberpunk game.

I'd take slight exception with that article regarding V's motivation. I'll put it in spoiler tags, just in case.

Spoiler:

That's a very good point. A feeling of urgency can only be at odds with a big sprawling open world. Basically you end up feeling bad about faffing about when you should be getting on with things.

The same thing could apply to Pillars of Eternity 2 Deadfire. You've got an urgent quest and procrastinating feels like a terrible idea but there is a big (semi) open world with loads of side quests (plus you're not sure you should rush in considering you're ill equipped and too inexperienced to deal with the one you're after).

Once again that's one thing FNV did right. FNV kept things personal. Say what you want about vengeance, it may not be the most noble motivation, it does work pretty well when it comes to driving a story forward.

Disclaimer: dont know the first thing about the tabletop rpg (nor do i care). My only "knowledge" of cyberpunk is the old Bladerunner movie and a couple sub-mediocre videogames.

Did not follow this game at all, had no intention to buy it for full price, but then i saw the tsunami of whining and wailing, that was even more intense than the equally foolish hype hurricane, and that stirred my curiosity.
What determined me to buy it on GoG, was the "optimization" complaints and being a graphics snob, i wanted to experience the game before they start fogtimizing it.

At first i thought the game was mediocre at best, even the graphics seemed kinda meh to me and i regretted the purchase, until "the heist" mission. After that i understood the first part was just a prologue, the game opened and improved a lot after that.

Now im 140 hrs in the game, enjoying it a lot, im basically avoiding the main quest because i dont want the game to finish, doing side quests only.

Its probably the only game in memory that had this amount of meaningful side quests, some of them were more interesting than the main story.
Also like how you can go through the game without killing anyone, non-lethal hacking and stealth are awesome. For the most part, violence and killing is strongly discouraged by your employers who seem to prefer quiet "clean" jobs. If you go guns blazing, you will still get your payment but they will complain about your "service".

Could write a wall of text, but it would be pointless. The problem with this game is that people concentrate on what it does not offer, so they fail to see what it does offer, and it offers a lot.

Interesting outlook K. I have to say that I don't have a blank slate like you as it's been a game and a genre that I've been fond of for decades and most of my life.

I guess I can't put my expectations aside when it comes to this game and RPGs in general.

For the record I still have a hard time considering The Witcher 3 as an RPG when it falls short in so many ways (but then I've seen gaming websites listing AC Valhalla as an RPG so it shows how low the bar is for some people).

I'll try to revisit the game at one point and I'll try to lower my expectations (which weren't that high to begin with) and go for a kill free run (although turning your gun into a non lethal weapon feels really odd to me). I can't remember a non lethal option being a thing in Gibson's novels or the pen and paper game.

I think I need to do what I did with the Middle Earth games and treat it as some sort of fan fiction loosely based on one of my favourite settings/genre.

Hey Cara, it was not as much of an outlook, as it was an attempt to point out some positives, because this thread seemed to drown in negativity.
Personally i gave up on definitions a long time ago, i dont care what an "rpg" is, i dont care if Witcher 3 (or any other game for that matter) is an rpg or not, i play what is offered, and i enjoy it (or not) based on what is offered, not based on my preconceived ideas of what an rpg, or fps, or mmo, or platformer is or should be.

Witcher 3 taught me a good lesson, i was so hyped up, pre-ordered it and expected something deep, only to be deeply disappointed by the shallowness of it all. After all was said and done though, i got very good entertainment out of the game, just not the kind i was wanting and expecting.

With Cyberpunk, things are very different, because unlike W3, this is an intense game with a profound story and side quests, even more worthy of admiration since its a true open world game, and tight stories and open worlds are very difficult to marry, but the devs managed the impossible here, no small feat by any metric.

Personally i think that they should not have named it Cyberpunk, most the problems come from the fact people expected...welll...Cyberpunk...and crpg to boot, and what they got was something of exquisite quality but....apparently not Cyberpunk and not crpg at all (judging from people's reactions, not my knowledge, because i have no knowledge of the subject).

As i said, i did not follow this game at all, so i dont know what was really promised, and what was imagined as promised by the imagination of the fans, all i see is a very good game that got immense flak based on unfulfilled great expectations.

Once we set aside bugs and glitches, I can see people are either loving it or hating it. As an RPG it is terrible and as an adaptation of the source material it certainly lacks substance (not to mention the glaring absence of Empathy).

Still, there is no denying that it hits the right marks visually (when it works) and I guess that if you approach it with a blank slate you may very well get something out of it.

I keep thinking of all the ways it could (should) have been a better RPG or a better adaptation of the pen and paper game.

If I could approach it like GTA Night City then I wouldn't have so many complaints. Part of it is on me but most of the blame is on the studio for hyping many things that they ultimately cut out (like the origins which were supposed to be such a big deal).

What you posted about the Witcher 3 rings true to me. I didn't get what I expected from the Witcher 3 (my favourite is still the first) and I certainly didn't get what I wanted from Cyberpunk 2077.

The non-lethal option in CP2077 is kinda lame, in my opinion. It's purely cosmetic. If you use non-lethal attacks, the people you "kill" will move around on the ground like they are still alive. They never wake up, though, so there is no real gameplay difference between lethal or non-lethal. There are a couple of cops I knocked out outside my character's apartment early in the game. They're still lying there on the ground, "unconscious". There is even a cybernetics mod you can slot which makes all your attacks non-lethal, and they drop with some regularity, so you can go around knocking people out with head-shots from your high-powered non-lethal sniper rifle.

It would be different if there were some gameplay or narrative consequences for killing or sparing people. Like, if you use non-lethal attacks, and then you get spotted and the enemies raise the alarm, they go around waking up their sleeping friends. Or maybe playing as a pacifist could earn you a reputation as such, opening up new options in quests.

It's not like the non-lethal options you might get in a game like Fallout, talking your way through the game with a high charisma character and never firing a shot. I love it when games offer options like that, but there's nothing like that here.

It's obvious that they cut corners which is all too common these days (and to be fair definitely not limited to this game).

Deus Ex or Dishonored implemented non lethal actions in a way that made them relevant to the gaming experience but that's clearly not the case here.

I don't know what's worse, having something central to Cyberpunk like Empathy cut out of the game or having something that is secondary like non lethal attacks being implemented in such a lazy way?

If there is one thing this game got right it's the art.

Here is a pretty nice link:

https://www.artstation.com/lealeo

We get to see how Johnny Silverhand looked before Keanu Reeves was involved.

I saw this video and it made me think of this thread. It compares interactions with objects in GTA 5 (which is 7 years old) and Cyberpunk 2077. IMO, it's hard to tell Cyberpunk is newer...