Great. While I truly admire the man's body of work, he is no more the single voice of cyberpunk than Tolkien is the single voice of fantasy.
One big thing I think people really need to understand about the game trailer is that they didn't shoot for the atypical "Bladerunner" perpetual night environment because they already knew they could do that with ease. Why that environment will of course be available in game, they wanted to show a truly rounded cyberpunk world where, hey guess what, sometimes you see the fucking sun.
Then again it may just be me because my first delve into the cyberpunk genre were K.W. Jeter's books Dr. Adder and the Glass Hammer. Far different animals from Nueromancer or Burning Chrome.
Not my words but from cyberpunk 2077 forum. So I understand why some want it more Bladerunner like. People are also not happy that there are only 3 classes out of 8.
"A couple quotes from the source book:
"Play at night. This goes hand in hand with a dark future. Sunshine and Cyber-punk don't mix. Even if the characters are in Bermuda, never play during the day unless the weather is cloudy, drizzly and generally miserable. Avoid playing Cyberpunk on nice days-it's distracting, and besides, don't you have better things to do?"
"And it always rains. Every day should be grim, gloomy and overcast. The stars never come out. The sun never shines. There are no singing birds, no laughing children. (The last bird died in 2008 and the kids are grown in vats.) The ozone layer decayed, the greenhouse effect took over, the sky is full of hydrocarbons and the ocean full of sludge."
Another quote straight from Mike Pondsmith he made on the official cyberpunk 2077 subreddit 2 months ago: "I can tell you exactly what Night City looks like in daylight, since I created it’s weather. On dry days, the sky is a orangey red, thanks to the tons of particulates suspended in the air. Kind of like what Seattle has looked like the past five days. Toxic rain days (rarer now) the sky is a blinding, whitish grey suffused with a stinging mist. Kind of what Seattle looks like normally."
I'm open to more information, but this trailer really threw me off. It's not how I've been imagining it for the past six years based on things I've read such as these.
EDIT: Here's one more that ReeseNE found: "It's rainy wet streets, it's nights like this with fog rolling in, cars and faceless people going by doing things that they're doing, there's something kind of hypnotic about it. That's how i get inspired. To carry what these streets are like, what the city is like, the mysteries, the stories, the 1000's and 1000's of people that you pass going by as shadows going by in this wet, cold, dangerous environment."
Your definition is a little too strict Islin with he whole, "mixed with a heavy dose of detective fiction Noir." criteria.
It's not my definition it's what people like William Gibson, Richard K. Morgan and Mike Pondsmith have been saying to describe it for decades. It's a defining characteristic of cyberpunk stories cited by the people who created the sub-genre.
It is not a feature of Steampunk which is more about the anachronisms created by producing fictional high tech with primitive tech.
Mate they are both sub genres of sci fi that's a fact. They are both similar in that they are about future tech but one is based in Victorian "what if" era and one is based on future right now what if....there is plenty of cyber punk that has nothing to do with the Noir sub genre.
Whatever. Not worth the time to argue about it.
PS. Of course they're both sci-fi sub genres. You want to point me to where I said they weren't?
No, but again my point is technically that they are the exact same genre about one hundred years apart.
Yeah? When I read everything both Jules Verne and HG Wells wrote I must have missed the parts about computers, implants and cyborgs as well as the evil corporations that had replaced governments.
Other than that yes, of course you're right, they're identical.
If you think cyberpunk is simply about implants and computers etc and steampunk is only about steam power, clocks and gears etc you sadly missed the entire point or driving force behind these stories and books, those are just the settings.
That's what steampunk and cyberpunk is really about, trying to define a "type" of setting, but if you look deeper they are both driven by similar themes....
If you want to be simplistic about it there are only 2 types of fiction: seizing the opportunity or overcoming the irritant. Cyberpunk and steampunk are different. And the difference is in the details.
I didn't miss a fucking thing. You and Zebub are the ones making claims about there being no difference. Par for the course around here where FO76 is an MMORPG lol.
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
I can't describe how disappointing this is to hear. At least at the moment, nothing is indicating if a 3rd person mode will also be available, but one can hope that, if it's not part of the game yet, that it will be added before release.
This is a strange trend that seems to be beginning. Kingdom Come, now Cyberpunk... I wonder if we'll see more titles eschewing the 3rd person, and I'm also interested in why.
Well I noticed something that all the devs do at roughly the same time...
Kingdom Come, Assassins Creed Origins, Witcher 3, Final Fantasy XV (singleplayer) to name a few major ones...no character customization and no main character you can choose to be a female. Some may have female character parts, but they are all male dominated and with little to no customization.
Another trend is removing singleplayer games entirely...every single major company is removing singleplayer. The only game to not remove singleplayer is Cyberpunk
The first one is definitely sexist, and seems to be happening coincidentally at the same time where women are campaigning (and winning) for equality (too much a coincidence to actually be a coincidence). These are companies that may "advertise" women equality, but actually behind closed doors believe the opposite. Exactly like companies (for example facebook) who publicly hate an orange haired baboon, but heavily helped the orange baboon win election so privately actually do not hate the baboon. So they say one thing, but actually believe another.
The second one is far more obvious. They want microtransactions in all games, and instead of games lasting decades (like I still play Ultima 7 and older games)...they want games to last a few years and then when servers are dead you can never play the game again. Its a pure greed decision.
Both things all happened at the same time. Which makes me think there is a secret closed doors agenda that vast majority of companies agreed to...its too much a coincidence (again) that every company is removing singleplayer at the same exact time of every other company. Far too much a coincidence. And whats with every major company suddenly removing playable females and removing customization?
"It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt."
Disappointed here as well. What's the point of having all kinds of awesome looking clothing, cybernetics, and the like if you spend 95% of the game not being able to see it? Also, that rules out any kind of meaningful cover system in combat. Hopefully they'll at least make third person an option, like Skyrim did. Otherwise, I might just wait for this to hit the bargain bin.
AN' DERE AIN'T NO SUCH FING AS ENUFF DAKKA, YA GROT! Enuff'z more than ya got an' less than too much an' there ain't no such fing as too much dakka. Say dere is, and me Squiggoff'z eatin' tonight!
We are born of the blood. Made men by the blood. Undone by the blood. Our eyes are yet to open. FEAR THE OLD BLOOD.
Your definition is a little too strict Islin with he whole, "mixed with a heavy dose of detective fiction Noir." criteria.
It's not my definition it's what people like William Gibson, Richard K. Morgan and Mike Pondsmith have been saying to describe it for decades. It's a defining characteristic of cyberpunk stories cited by the people who created the sub-genre.
It is not a feature of Steampunk which is more about the anachronisms created by producing fictional high tech with primitive tech.
Mate they are both sub genres of sci fi that's a fact. They are both similar in that they are about future tech but one is based in Victorian "what if" era and one is based on future right now what if....there is plenty of cyber punk that has nothing to do with the Noir sub genre.
Whatever. Not worth the time to argue about it.
PS. Of course they're both sci-fi sub genres. You want to point me to where I said they weren't?
No, but again my point is technically that they are the exact same genre about one hundred years apart.
Yeah? When I read everything both Jules Verne and HG Wells wrote I must have missed the parts about computers, implants and cyborgs as well as the evil corporations that had replaced governments.
Other than that yes, of course you're right, they're identical.
If you think cyberpunk is simply about implants and computers etc and steampunk is only about steam power, clocks and gears etc you sadly missed the entire point or driving force behind these stories and books, those are just the settings.
That's what steampunk and cyberpunk is really about, trying to define a "type" of setting, but if you look deeper they are both driven by similar themes....
If you want to be simplistic about it there are only 2 types of fiction: seizing the opportunity or overcoming the irritant. Cyberpunk and steampunk are different. And the difference is in the details.
I didn't miss a fucking thing. You and Zebub are the ones making claims about there being no difference. Par for the course around here where FO76 is an MMORPG lol.
I'm sure you'd like to believe that as its your way of flipping over the game table and walking away as a pretend winner, but the reality is that steampunk and cyberpunk are two fingers on the same hand. Just as much as the Lord of the Rings and Game of Thrones share similarities yet some drastic moralistic differences.
You say they are completely different because they don't share the same level of technology. And in that you are correct. But that isn't what defines the actual heart of their genres. Its the social impact of said technologies on their current societies that are the forefront of both fictional incarnations. Which I'm sorry to say, seems to have gone completely over your head.
Even the social impact themes are totally different. Verne's and Well's books were written in Victorian times and reflect a general satisfaction with the social order and social structure. Their villains are beasts or otherwordly "others."
Cyberpunk is all about discontent with the social order and the villains are the corporations and the agents of that social order.
Maybe that other difference went over your head?
Besides, the person I was responded to before you decided to interject yourself to share your wisdom, I'm sure was talking more about the look and settings and feel of computer games that are steampunk... which is another huge difference between the two and the one I was actually responding to.
Your interjection was so way out there with respect to the look and feel of steampunk vs. cyberpunk in games, that I honestly thought you were trying to be funny and it's why I responded with my comment about you pulling that out your ass.
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
Your definition is a little too strict Islin with he whole, "mixed with a heavy dose of detective fiction Noir." criteria.
It's not my definition it's what people like William Gibson, Richard K. Morgan and Mike Pondsmith have been saying to describe it for decades. It's a defining characteristic of cyberpunk stories cited by the people who created the sub-genre.
It is not a feature of Steampunk which is more about the anachronisms created by producing fictional high tech with primitive tech.
Mate they are both sub genres of sci fi that's a fact. They are both similar in that they are about future tech but one is based in Victorian "what if" era and one is based on future right now what if....there is plenty of cyber punk that has nothing to do with the Noir sub genre.
Whatever. Not worth the time to argue about it.
PS. Of course they're both sci-fi sub genres. You want to point me to where I said they weren't?
No, but again my point is technically that they are the exact same genre about one hundred years apart.
Yeah? When I read everything both Jules Verne and HG Wells wrote I must have missed the parts about computers, implants and cyborgs as well as the evil corporations that had replaced governments.
Other than that yes, of course you're right, they're identical.
If you think cyberpunk is simply about implants and computers etc and steampunk is only about steam power, clocks and gears etc you sadly missed the entire point or driving force behind these stories and books, those are just the settings.
That's what steampunk and cyberpunk is really about, trying to define a "type" of setting, but if you look deeper they are both driven by similar themes....
If you want to be simplistic about it there are only 2 types of fiction: seizing the opportunity or overcoming the irritant. Cyberpunk and steampunk are different. And the difference is in the details.
I didn't miss a fucking thing. You and Zebub are the ones making claims about there being no difference. Par for the course around here where FO76 is an MMORPG lol.
I'm sure you'd like to believe that as its your way of flipping over the game table and walking away as a pretend winner, but the reality is that steampunk and cyberpunk are two fingers on the same hand. Just as much as the Lord of the Rings and Game of Thrones share similarities yet some drastic moralistic differences.
You say they are completely different because they don't share the same level of technology. And in that you are correct. But that isn't what defines the actual heart of their genres. Its the social impact of said technologies on their current societies that are the forefront of both fictional incarnations. Which I'm sorry to say, seems to have gone completely over your head.
Exactly this.
We never said or made claims about, " there being no difference" only that they were similar.
On the other hand you are the one that said, "Two totally different things." so I think your claim that, "I didn't miss a fucking thing" is premature and a tad asinine....nice way of cutting of your nose to spite your face there....
Brenics ~ Just to point out I do believe Chris Roberts is going down as the man who cheated backers and took down crowdfunding for gaming.
I would say I put up with it. You can tell there must be something wrong with FPV because a lot of games that have it go into 3rd person for melee moves, etc.
I can't describe how disappointing this is to hear. At least at the moment, nothing is indicating if a 3rd person mode will also be available, but one can hope that, if it's not part of the game yet, that it will be added before release.
The thing is the moment the 3rd person view is available in any game first person view is effectively dead.
Didn't GTA 5 release with only TPP and then later added FPP? That totally negates what you just typed. Plus why does it matter if TPP or both views are added to a single player game?
I would say I put up with it. You can tell there must be something wrong with FPV because a lot of games that have it go into 3rd person for melee moves, etc.
Elder Scrolls, Zeno Clash, Vermintide, Shadow Warrior, and Mount&Blade don't do that to you and they all have pretty good melee.
That's an argument to developer skill in their implementation. Also likely relates to how well they can relay to you what's going on in a given scene through first person versus third. Third is just simpler on that end and is an easy solution for FoV concerns, which leads to many developers following that path.
This is ultimately a conversation that rests very squarely on preferences over any actual mechanical values. Those that enjoy first or third will sit on opposing sides of the fence, and the games that cater to those play styles will be subsequently liked or disliked by their respective groupings.
I'm personally a person who takes to first person games very well, but I also have a semi-mechanical reason with my eyes not seeing normal (I'm monocular, what you see on a monitor is not far from what I see in real life as far as visual depth and perspective goes, so I adapt to first person very easily since there's no real division for me in how I see and process what's going on). I do personally enjoy the feeling of being able to "see" as my character and by extension have the experience of being in a game world, and am very comfortable with the play style that surrounds that.
There are plenty of others that are not comfortable with that style, or simply have differing preferences for other reasons.
It did work for Deus Ex. The game functioned fine. But obviously some people have liked it and others don't.
Off-topic, watching this conversation about how cyberpunk and steampunk are virtually the same all because one guy couldn't admit they were wrong with a full stop; it has been breath taking to witness.
Is it mother nature or maybe the polar axis are shifting and some people are feeling the effects (that's my reasoning for the world right now)?
Carry on gents.
"As far as the forum code of conduct, I would think it's a bit outdated and in need of a refre *CLOSED*"
I prefer third person in general, but normally for the larger fov and advantages that gives you in combat for multiplayer games. I honestly could care less, after The Witcher 3 I'd buy lootboxes from CDPR.
Haxus Council Member 21 year MMO veteran PvP Raid Leader Lover of The Witcher & CD Projekt Red
The Editor disappoints me. You're sad that they're reinventing themselves? Just like they said they would after they said that the Witcher series had lived its time. Now they want to try something different? So you wanted just a reskin, I'm guessing? Now that would had been disappointing in my eyes.
I don't think anyone's saying they're "sad", but disappointed. Do people not like different things? I much prefer 3rd person perspective, others like 1st person perspective, and some even live with both. I don't see tears or rage, just more of a disappointed shoulder shrug.
Exactly my sentiment, and the same with Fallout 76. Was very much looking forward to these 2 titles, now, not so much. I'll still follow news on them, and decide whether or not to buy them in the couple months before release. I've been wrong before on my judgement, in either direction. Too early to call on either.
Once upon a time, there lived a world where it was okay to like or not like a thing and move on. It may seem strange, in this new world we live in where people feel the need to pick a side and try to dox/swat/bully someone who likes or is part of a movie/show/VG we don't like. Or do the same for someone that criticizes a movie/show/VG we do like...
I can't describe how disappointing this is to hear. At least at the moment, nothing is indicating if a 3rd person mode will also be available, but one can hope that, if it's not part of the game yet, that it will be added before release.
This is a strange trend that seems to be beginning. Kingdom Come, now Cyberpunk... I wonder if we'll see more titles eschewing the 3rd person, and I'm also interested in why.
Well it certainly cuts down on the all the animations necessary for a 3rd person view. Then think of the customization options that will only have to be shown periodically. For most companies, that would be a money saving option but CDPR with the scads of money they've taken in thanks to The Witcher 3?
I also started to wonder if they had plans for VR one day.
Regardless, I HATE 1st person, especially in an RPG. I want to make and customize my character and see her out in the world doing what she's doing. Seeing just her hands is....just no. Not my cup of tea.
I guess I'll temper my excitement for this one right along with Fallout 76.
Thank goodness for Ubi going much more narrative RPGish in Odyssey and some of the 3rd person co-op shooters coming down the pike.
Maybe it's just growing up loving games like the original Dues Ex, but I have zero issue with an RPG being first person, especially if the primary form of combat is gun play (i.e. I played the 3D Fallouts, and even Skyrim, in first person).
I kind of get the wanting to see more of your character thing... but at the same time, sometimes the character model just gets in the way, and if the world is detailed, I'd rather see more of it, and be able to get closer to it (which first person does in ways that third person just can't).
So yeah, I guess an option would be nice for those that want it, but if the gameplay is tuned for first person, you could at least give it a chance before writing it off.
Cyberpunk 2077 is sort of seeing this same thing from the opposing direction. Fans of CD Prijekt Red know them for the Witcher series which is itself a third person RPG series, and a first person title is a shift for those who are fans of their previous title's designs.
I really don't get that... I mean I'm one of the first to complain when an established series gets such a change up (though in the case of the recent God of War it was definitely a good choice), but Cyberpunk is a completely separate thing to The Witcher... it's like complaining that Horizon: Zero Dawn isn't Killzone 4; a company should be allowed to make different types of games.
Cyberpunk 2077 is sort of seeing this same thing from the opposing direction. Fans of CD Prijekt Red know them for the Witcher series which is itself a third person RPG series, and a first person title is a shift for those who are fans of their previous title's designs.
I really don't get that... I mean I'm one of the first to complain when an established series gets such a change up (though in the case of the recent God of War it was definitely a good choice), but Cyberpunk is a completely separate thing to The Witcher... it's like complaining that Horizon: Zero Dawn isn't Killzone 4; a company should be allowed to make different types of games.
My statement was in response to alkarionlog and how he'd framed his question. My answer you just quoted only exists in relation to that.
If you'd like to talk about it out of context, then I can say many people are fans of studios and are apt to follow that studio as they develop new titles. Oftentimes those titles exist with a bit of a continuity though with some exceptions from larger studios when it comes to having multiple in-house dev groups working on a variety of properties.
Yes, Cyberpunk is completely separate from the Witcher, but that does not mean every fan of the studio or otherwise will perceive it that way. It's not unnatural to look at what the studio has developed thus-far and assume that if it exists within one style of gameplay and mechanic set, that they would continue to develop more content within that familiar zone even if it gets a reskin.
For a developer to shift gears into a new concept for game design and play style takes with a shift in design philosophy and how they implement a variety of features at times. If it's something the studio has not done before it creates a gap or reasonable doubt on if they will succeed in creating this "different" game.
I do agree that a company should be allowed to make different games, but it's not absurdist to have doubts when a studio steps into new territory.
In the case of a studio like CD Projekt Red they have only really done the Witcher series thus-far and consequently it's our only frame of reference to the type of mechanics they are familiar with developing. We can say, however, that they have proven to be a studio of rather high standards, and have shown to learn across their development cycle of the Witcher series, meaning any next endeavor they are likely to continue to grow with and from.
You know just because it lacks a 3rd person veve does not mean it's going to be bad. Look at Deus ex, for example. I prefer 1st person if the game is built around it. Being in 3rd person seeing your charterch is an emersion breaker if you think about it
free 7 day sub and unlocks for swtor new accounts and 90+ day inactive subs click here to get it!
You know just because it lacks a 3rd person veve does not mean it's going to be bad. Look at Deus ex, for example. I prefer 1st person if the game is built around it. Being in 3rd person seeing your charterch is an emersion breaker if you think about it
I don't buy that myself. If that breaks your immersion surely the UI and everything else that makes it a game would also.
You know just because it lacks a 3rd person veve does not mean it's going to be bad. Look at Deus ex, for example. I prefer 1st person if the game is built around it. Being in 3rd person seeing your charterch is an emersion breaker if you think about it
I don't buy that myself. If that breaks your immersion surely the UI and everything else that makes it a game would also.
You don't have to buy it. He feels more immersed according to him.
You know just because it lacks a 3rd person veve does not mean it's going to be bad. Look at Deus ex, for example. I prefer 1st person if the game is built around it. Being in 3rd person seeing your charterch is an emersion breaker if you think about it
Half Life 2 and Dying Light was built around fpp and I can not play either of those for more than 15 minutes w/o wanting to vomit (and I was really enjoying both games)
Deus Ex HR I could play and finished it.
The apprehension isnt just over a prefered perspective.
You know just because it lacks a 3rd person veve does not mean it's going to be bad. Look at Deus ex, for example. I prefer 1st person if the game is built around it. Being in 3rd person seeing your charterch is an emersion breaker if you think about it
Half Life 2 and Dying Light was built around fpp and I can not play either of those for more than 15 minutes w/o wanting to vomit (and I was really enjoying both games)
Deus Ex HR I could play and finished it.
The apprehension isnt just over a prefered perspective.
Three things that I did helped me with nausea in 1st person games:
Improving the FOV, aka make it as wide as possible. This is especially true if you have a big monitor.
Lower the camera rotation speed. Four to five times slower sometimes. This is also a trick to massively improve your accuracy in FPS games. The downside is that it needs more space in your desk to move your mouse around and some getting used to if you were into the habit of moving the mouse with your wrist.
Focus on the center of your screen. The obvious focus point on 3rd person perspective is the character. When you're in 1st person you either focus dead ahead or on your hands and weapon. On this point, I would like to suggest that you look at your frame rate, since frame drop increases fatigue. You can also try to remove some modern effects, like motion blur, and see if that helps.
Honestly in terms of view its about how it plays that is important. Does not matter one bit if its 1st or 3rd if its clunky and awkward feeling. I get it if you get nausea when playing and for those people I feel bad(happens to my brother)
Comments
"A couple quotes from the source book:
"Play at night. This goes hand in hand with a dark future. Sunshine and Cyber-punk don't mix. Even if the characters are in Bermuda, never play during the day unless the weather is cloudy, drizzly and generally miserable. Avoid playing Cyberpunk on nice days-it's distracting, and besides, don't you have better things to do?"
"And it always rains. Every day should be grim, gloomy and overcast. The stars never come out. The sun never shines. There are no singing birds, no laughing children. (The last bird died in 2008 and the kids are grown in vats.) The ozone layer decayed, the greenhouse effect took over, the sky is full of hydrocarbons and the ocean full of sludge."
Another quote straight from Mike Pondsmith he made on the official cyberpunk 2077 subreddit 2 months ago:
"I can tell you exactly what Night City looks like in daylight, since I created it’s weather. On dry days, the sky is a orangey red, thanks to the tons of particulates suspended in the air. Kind of like what Seattle has looked like the past five days. Toxic rain days (rarer now) the sky is a blinding, whitish grey suffused with a stinging mist. Kind of what Seattle looks like normally."
I'm open to more information, but this trailer really threw me off. It's not how I've been imagining it for the past six years based on things I've read such as these.
EDIT: Here's one more that ReeseNE found:
"It's rainy wet streets, it's nights like this with fog rolling in, cars and faceless people going by doing things that they're doing, there's something kind of hypnotic about it. That's how i get inspired. To carry what these streets are like, what the city is like, the mysteries, the stories, the 1000's and 1000's of people that you pass going by as shadows going by in this wet, cold, dangerous environment."
I didn't miss a fucking thing. You and Zebub are the ones making claims about there being no difference. Par for the course around here where FO76 is an MMORPG lol.
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
Disappointed here as well. What's the point of having all kinds of awesome looking clothing, cybernetics, and the like if you spend 95% of the game not being able to see it? Also, that rules out any kind of meaningful cover system in combat. Hopefully they'll at least make third person an option, like Skyrim did. Otherwise, I might just wait for this to hit the bargain bin.
AN' DERE AIN'T NO SUCH FING AS ENUFF DAKKA, YA GROT! Enuff'z more than ya got an' less than too much an' there ain't no such fing as too much dakka. Say dere is, and me Squiggoff'z eatin' tonight!
We are born of the blood. Made men by the blood. Undone by the blood. Our eyes are yet to open. FEAR THE OLD BLOOD.
#IStandWithVic
Cyberpunk is all about discontent with the social order and the villains are the corporations and the agents of that social order.
Maybe that other difference went over your head?
Besides, the person I was responded to before you decided to interject yourself to share your wisdom, I'm sure was talking more about the look and settings and feel of computer games that are steampunk... which is another huge difference between the two and the one I was actually responding to.
Your interjection was so way out there with respect to the look and feel of steampunk vs. cyberpunk in games, that I honestly thought you were trying to be funny and it's why I responded with my comment about you pulling that out your ass.
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
Brenics ~ Just to point out I do believe Chris Roberts is going down as the man who cheated backers and took down crowdfunding for gaming.
Plus why does it matter if TPP or both views are added to a single player game?
That's an argument to developer skill in their implementation. Also likely relates to how well they can relay to you what's going on in a given scene through first person versus third. Third is just simpler on that end and is an easy solution for FoV concerns, which leads to many developers following that path.
This is ultimately a conversation that rests very squarely on preferences over any actual mechanical values. Those that enjoy first or third will sit on opposing sides of the fence, and the games that cater to those play styles will be subsequently liked or disliked by their respective groupings.
I'm personally a person who takes to first person games very well, but I also have a semi-mechanical reason with my eyes not seeing normal (I'm monocular, what you see on a monitor is not far from what I see in real life as far as visual depth and perspective goes, so I adapt to first person very easily since there's no real division for me in how I see and process what's going on). I do personally enjoy the feeling of being able to "see" as my character and by extension have the experience of being in a game world, and am very comfortable with the play style that surrounds that.
There are plenty of others that are not comfortable with that style, or simply have differing preferences for other reasons.
It did work for Deus Ex. The game functioned fine. But obviously some people have liked it and others don't.
Is it mother nature or maybe the polar axis are shifting and some people are feeling the effects (that's my reasoning for the world right now)?
Carry on gents.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
거북이는 목을 내밀 때 안 움직입니다
21 year MMO veteran
PvP Raid Leader
Lover of The Witcher & CD Projekt Red
Once upon a time, there lived a world where it was okay to like or not like a thing and move on. It may seem strange, in this new world we live in where people feel the need to pick a side and try to dox/swat/bully someone who likes or is part of a movie/show/VG we don't like. Or do the same for someone that criticizes a movie/show/VG we do like...
Maybe it's just growing up loving games like the original Dues Ex, but I have zero issue with an RPG being first person, especially if the primary form of combat is gun play (i.e. I played the 3D Fallouts, and even Skyrim, in first person).
I kind of get the wanting to see more of your character thing... but at the same time, sometimes the character model just gets in the way, and if the world is detailed, I'd rather see more of it, and be able to get closer to it (which first person does in ways that third person just can't).
So yeah, I guess an option would be nice for those that want it, but if the gameplay is tuned for first person, you could at least give it a chance before writing it off.
I really don't get that... I mean I'm one of the first to complain when an established series gets such a change up (though in the case of the recent God of War it was definitely a good choice), but Cyberpunk is a completely separate thing to The Witcher... it's like complaining that Horizon: Zero Dawn isn't Killzone 4; a company should be allowed to make different types of games.
거북이는 목을 내밀 때 안 움직입니다
If you'd like to talk about it out of context, then I can say many people are fans of studios and are apt to follow that studio as they develop new titles. Oftentimes those titles exist with a bit of a continuity though with some exceptions from larger studios when it comes to having multiple in-house dev groups working on a variety of properties.
Yes, Cyberpunk is completely separate from the Witcher, but that does not mean every fan of the studio or otherwise will perceive it that way. It's not unnatural to look at what the studio has developed thus-far and assume that if it exists within one style of gameplay and mechanic set, that they would continue to develop more content within that familiar zone even if it gets a reskin.
For a developer to shift gears into a new concept for game design and play style takes with a shift in design philosophy and how they implement a variety of features at times. If it's something the studio has not done before it creates a gap or reasonable doubt on if they will succeed in creating this "different" game.
I do agree that a company should be allowed to make different games, but it's not absurdist to have doubts when a studio steps into new territory.
In the case of a studio like CD Projekt Red they have only really done the Witcher series thus-far and consequently it's our only frame of reference to the type of mechanics they are familiar with developing. We can say, however, that they have proven to be a studio of rather high standards, and have shown to learn across their development cycle of the Witcher series, meaning any next endeavor they are likely to continue to grow with and from.
free 7 day sub and unlocks for swtor new accounts and 90+ day inactive subs click here to get it!
Click here for trove referral, bonuses to both!
Deus Ex HR I could play and finished it.
The apprehension isnt just over a prefered perspective.
On this point, I would like to suggest that you look at your frame rate, since frame drop increases fatigue. You can also try to remove some modern effects, like motion blur, and see if that helps.