|
And Here is the official site of the game
Relase date is not yet known, but what is known is that CDprojekt has hired Mike Pondsmith as an advisor and are using the 2020 rules to make the game.
(thank god, i hated Cyberpunk V3)
Any thoughts?
This needs to happen nao! :D
I watched the teaser a couple of days ago. I want this one. And I'm glad it's the 2.0.2.0 rule set as well. The fact that's it's by the developer of the Witcher games doesn't hurt either.
Well I am eager to see Cyberpunk 2077 as well.
I am worried over their choice to hire Mike Pondsmith however. He has too big an ego to work well with others (he was banned from many of his own game's fan sites) and makes really really bad development decisions: Just look at Cyberpunk V3 and the new Mekton setting (rehashed Argol). And he already started and cancelled other Cyberpunk computer games...
Well I am eager to see Cyberpunk 2077 as well.
I am worried over their choice to hire Mike Pondsmith however. He has too big an ego to work well with others (he was banned from many of his own game's fan sites) and makes really really bad development decisions: Just look at Cyberpunk V3 and the new Mekton setting (rehashed Argol). And he already started and cancelled other Cyberpunk computer games...
He owns Cyberpunk. Not involving him would be difficult, and he is "consulting" from a continent away. Examining his mistakes (and not everyone will agree they are) you shouldn't overlook his successes.
|
|
Well I am eager to see Cyberpunk 2077 as well.
I am worried over their choice to hire Mike Pondsmith however. He has too big an ego to work well with others (he was banned from many of his own game's fan sites) and makes really really bad development decisions: Just look at Cyberpunk V3 and the new Mekton setting (rehashed Argol). And he already started and cancelled other Cyberpunk computer games...
Nuking the Arasaka tower in night city in the fourth corporate war was not a fun decision. Especially considering he wants to make it matter in the 2077 game.
I believe that in an interview i heart two differing opinions on the way the game should be.
Mike said that they should continue the timeline to 2077 as if v3 didn't happen.
CDPR wants to simply transplant the 2020 setting to year 2077 with little to no changes to the existing power structure.
I prefer the latter.
I do as well Hama, prefer the later. Did Mike want to ignore Cyber-Generation as well? You know the previous continuation of Cyberpunk with the nano-plague and the gifted kids.
I do hope someone points them at "Ghost in the Shell", that is such an awesome Cyberpunk style setting.
And Chance I most certainly am not overlooking his successes.
I learned the art of GMing on Cyberpunk and Star Wars. So I have a special fondness for his system.
And Chance I most certainly am not overlooking his successes.
I learned the art of GMing on Cyberpunk and Star Wars. So I have a special fondness for his system.
A good combination :) I ran a Star Wars game using Mekton Zeta once. That was fun. As for Cyberpunk, I loved the 2.0.2.0 version. I could skip v.3 and for that matter most other games in the genre...
Hama, well the interview was good. It gives me hope he will do the right thing.
Still, I would have loved to be a fly on the wall when they:
Mike: "quoted back to me things I had forgotten."
Mike hates that with a passion.
Chance, My BFF learned GMing on Mekton Zeta. I still joke about some of her failures when running it, just like she still jokes about my Cyberpunk failures. Oddly I never failed running Star Wars and it was the contrast between what I did right in one vs my failures in the other that really helped me understand that magical path to good games.
Mike seems like an arrogant man i would say. I hope that doesn't screw the game up.
I don't think so. CD Projekt are making the game and are a very canny company. Their work on THE WITCHER games, another pre-existing franchise, was superb (although I believe Andrzej Sapkowski was a lot more hands-off than Mike Pondsmith is being). In addition, CYBERPUNK 2077 is still fairly early in development. I think they'll take a fair amount of time to get the game right and make sure they keep both the gameplay good and the creator happy at the same time. Based on how sales of THE WITCHER books shot up after those games came out, I'm sure it's not lost on Pondsmith that this game could introduce his P&P game to an audience considerably larger than has ever existed for CYBERPUNK before.
A lot of very creative people have big egos.
I wonder sometimes if that is what drives them forward or what brings them down?
Maybe both...
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The game's first full trailer.
This is something to behold. Very clever to confound expectations by setting the trailer in daylight ("Shouldn't be raining and dark?" "In California?").
As far as can be told, this is the same format at THE WITCHER 3, so massive open world (in this case all of Night City and part of the surrounding countryside), you can go anywhere you want in any of the locations in the trailer, there's a central story to follow and there's an absolute metric ton of side-quests, optional activities and stuff to do. It's a bigger game than THE WITCHER 3 by all accounts, so you should be looking at around 100 hours for a single run-through of the game.
There's also a customisable protagonist, so you can choose your gender, appearance, cyber-enhancements etc. I presume that means they've fully voiced all of your dialogue in the game with two actors to cover all the bases.
Some questions remain to be answered, particularly on how much the game will lean on the car (is it going to be a bit GTA-ish with a full RPG bolted on?), how the gunplay works (at the moment it sounds like the game will be third-person but will switch to FP for aiming) and if they've kept the multiplayer component. From their massive focus on the single-player side of the game and their sarcastic press release, which seems to be taking shots at BioWare and Bethesda for abandoning the SP audience, at least for now, they may have just dropped the MP side of the game altogether.
Holy Cow this looks really ... REALLY ... good.
Cyberpunk 2077 showcase going on right now. Lots of tweets from lots of journos. Main points:
Witcher 3 format/vibes with a lot of conversations, choices on how you do things (combat, stealth, persusasion, hacking, intimidation).
Alternative timeline: this future developed from the 1980s, not our own timeline, and Cyberpunk 2020 and the all the existing lore remains intact. Characters from the existing Cyberpunk products will appear, but they're a bit coy about how (as the video game is set 57 years after the previous canon).
You can take people down through stealth attacks.
Full day/night cycle and variable weather conditions.
Six distinct regions of the city. Very rich high-end areas and a massive, near-lawless region called Pacifica.
The game will let you enter almost every building you can see in the trailer (whimper). The entire city you can see in the trailer - every bit of it - is the open world and you can explore it all.
Along with normal areas, the game has several "megatowers", which are basically Judge Dredd blocs complete with their own ecosystems, factions and shops.
Massive verticality to the game.
EXP is divided into two strands: normal EXP is accrued from completing the main quests. Street EXP or street cred is mostly gained from side-missions. As it increases, your chances of being attacked by criminals on the streets in slum areas decreases and you start opening up new vendors and informants.
You see the game primarily through a first-person perspective! That's new information.
CDPR emphasise that this is a roleplaying game with shooter elements, not an action game. Choice and narrative consequence is the game's #1 emphasis.
Your character is called "Vee" but you can define their gender, backstory and abilities. Interestingly, CDPR seem to be pushing the idea they see Vee as a female character, but it's up to players how they shape the character.
There are perks, skills and cyberware in the game that define your abilities. There are template classes you can use for guidance, but not hard-set classes.
The main story is noir-influenced with an emphasis on the inequality between the streets and the rich people living in the towers above.
Ugh, it's first-person. Dammit.
There's some great stuff here.
No multiplayer at launch. They're working on optional multiplayer ideas that might be added later on, but CYBERPUNK 2077 will be a purely singleplayer game when it comes out.
My OCD is whimpering
I do hope they don't really touch on the Cybergeneration series, that went too far into anime superpowered territory.
As for entering most buildings, I can see this wearing thin for many players. When I played Witcher 3, I did the whole 'loot the buildings' thing early on but scrounging for bit of crafting material got old after a while and the buildings were pretty much limited to 'loot the container' in terms of interactivity.
As for weapons, while having loads of guns and HtH options sounds nice, I inevitably stuck to just a few swords in W3 and never used the secondary weapons since they couldn't be upgraded.
My OCD is whimpering
I do hope they don't really touch on the Cybergeneration series, that went too far into anime superpowered territory.
I think Cybergeneration is an alternative-universe storyline even within the Cyberpunk 2020 setting (the later editions of the game make no mention of its events, and directly clash with it), so I'd be surprised if it even came up.
Ugh, it's first-person. Dammit.
I'm out.
...If you don't mind explaining, why is this distinction between first-person and third-person so important to you, given CDPR's note that the game is foremost an RPG and chances are you'll be seeing your character and their reactions to things on a frequent basis?
Personally, I find playing first-person games always way, way more uncomfortable than third-person games on my eyes. That I had cases of motion sickness from early first-person games like Wolfenstein 3D can have something to do with that as well.
I'm open to being pleasantly surprised, after all I could live with the Bioshock games, but I would have vastly preferred it to be third-person perspective like the Witcher 3, Mass Effect 1-3 oder Dragon Age: Origins.
Helps some with stealth since I can check around corners and over objects. less likely I'll get blindsided by something out of my FOV
You will get to see your character in cutscenes. If you've played WITCHER 3, you'll know that every major dialogue scene is effectively a cut scene (and there's a lot of them). There are also "other circumstances" in which you'll see your character. We know that vehicles will be piloted 3rd-person (and you can see your character at will in that mode). They didn't discuss the game's stealth system at E3, but said it existed and your character would have the ability to hang from ceilings and things like that (shades of the ARKHAM games), which would be hard to do in first-person.
In addition, they did explain the problem. Originally they had 3rd person/1st person switching, but it caused two major problems. The first was having to have larger areas to accommodate the camera. They wanted really tight alleyways and spaces you could crawl through which just didn't work in 3rd person. That could maybe be borne (as with ARKHAM, switching to 1st person in tight spaces) but the far bigger problem was the game's verticality. You spend a lot of time in ranged combat with people below or above you, or you're climbing skyscrapers and looking up and down a lot, far, far more than in WITCHER 3. It got to the point where they felt that accommodating the 3rd person viewpoint was impractical (not to mention massively expensive). They also likely remembered the complaints they got about Geralt's iffy positioning during the WITCHER 3 again (any sequence with a ledge was a nightmare due to Geralt's clumsy feet).
Still, CDPR have the best customer relations of any company currently in gaming. I wouldn't be surprised if they revisited the idea of switching modes after the complaints.
Personally, I find playing first-person games always way, way more uncomfortable than third-person games on my eyes. That I had cases of motion sickness from early first-person games like Wolfenstein 3D can have something to do with that as well.
Do you game on console? This seems to be predominantly a problem with FPS on console which tends to disappear on PC, mainly because PC FPS games have a different FOV (field of view) and you can usually change the FOV. Motion sickness in FPS comes from the game's FOV being different to your normal eyesight's FOV and your body not liking the difference, so adjusting the FOV until they match (or almost match) can completely solve the problem. I believe recent console games are tending to include FOV sliders more and more frequently to help with the issue.
Hmm... going by this interview, they really wanted people to have a sense of immersion over a sense of tactical information. The idea is that in a dense urban environment, things are happening around you, and sometimes you'll want to stop and actually pay attention to them so you can see what's going on. They might add a third-person mode, but a lot of design decisions - from levels to the interface - are designed with first-person in mind.
Do you game on console? This seems to be predominantly a problem with FPS on console which tends to disappear on PC, mainly because PC FPS games have a different FOV (field of view) and you can usually change the FOV. Motion sickness in FPS comes from the game's FOV being different to your normal eyesight's FOV and your body not liking the difference, so adjusting the FOV until they match (or almost match) can completely solve the problem. I believe recent console games are tending to include FOV sliders more and more frequently to help with the issue.
Nope, PC master race. I only used to have this problem with early FPS titles, as I said. Wolfenstein 3D is from 1992. ^^
While I vastly prefer third person perspective, CD Project Red's arguments for first person perspective in Cyberpunk are compelling and I've managed to do okay with games like Bioshock in the past. So I'll be fine.
If they add a third-person perspective to appease customers, it'd be nice. But not at the price of throwing away all their other world and game design.
Pah. 1st person is for FPS only. Also it makes me nauseous nowadays.
@Freehold DM: I think I'll have to respectfully disagree with you about the first part. There's something to be said for having a sense of immersion in the game - like when enemies are coming at you instead of merely approaching your character. I can understand disliking it if there's something about the camera movement that physically affects you, though.
Pah. 1st person is for FPS only. Also it makes me nauseous nowadays.
Before THE WITCHER 3 (third-person), the three greatest RPG games of the 21st century were FALLOUT: NEW VEGAS (first-person), VAMPIRE: THE MASQUERADE - BLOODLINES (first-person) and DEUS EX (first-person) so that's not really true. Plenty of fantastic non-shooter games presented in first-person (see also: FIREWATCH, the latter DEUS EX games, DISHONORED 1 & 2, PREY, the non-Obsidian FALLOUTs).
Also, have you tried changing the FOV settings on those games that makes you nauseous? There's no physical reason why a game should make you nauseous in first-person mode once you make adjustments (if you're gaming on console where the FOV slider is usually missing, that's another matter).
Ugh, it's first-person. Dammit.So?
See above.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Pah. 1st person is for FPS only. Also it makes me nauseous nowadays.Before THE WITCHER 3 (third-person), the three greatest RPG games of the 21st century were FALLOUT: NEW VEGAS (first-person), VAMPIRE: THE MASQUERADE - BLOODLINES (first-person) and DEUS EX (first-person) so that's not really true.
I think that's a very debatable view of things. I'd put the Mass Effect trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins and Baldur's Gate 2 ahead of all of those games and they were third person view games (isometric view in case of Baldurs Gate 2). But of course you are right that there were very good first-person RPG's as well.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think that's a very debatable view of things. I'd put the Mass Effect trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins and Baldur's Gate 2 ahead of all of those games and they were third person view games (isometric view in case of Baldurs Gate 2). But of course you are right that there were very good first-person RPG's as well.
Oh yeah, BG2 was 2000. I'd grant that one. The rest I think are a lot more debatable: DA:O was a fantastic idea with a very flawed execution and even more flawed sequels (although the trilogy as a whole has had some good moments) and the same with the MASS EFFECT trilogy, although its characters were excellent. The story, er, not so much, especially in the third one. Some outstanding individual moments though.
Definitely a reminder that we miss Classic BioWare. CD Projekt Red's love letter to the fans that accompanied CYBERPUNK 2077's reveal, talking about their focus on single-player, felt like a bit of a rebuke to both BioWare and Bethesda for moving in a multiplayer direction and forgetting where they came from and what made them popular (if only temporarily in Bethesda's case). That might smart with BioWare, as they helped CDPR get off the ground and gave them a lot of technical support on the first WITCHER in the first place.
Pah. 1st person is for FPS only. Also it makes me nauseous nowadays.Before THE WITCHER 3 (third-person), the three greatest RPG games of the 21st century were FALLOUT: NEW VEGAS (first-person), VAMPIRE: THE MASQUERADE - BLOODLINES (first-person) and DEUS EX (first-person) so that's not really true. Plenty of fantastic non-shooter games presented in first-person (see also: FIREWATCH, the latter DEUS EX games, DISHONORED 1 & 2, PREY, the non-Obsidian FALLOUTs).
Also, have you tried changing the FOV settings on those games that makes you nauseous? There's no physical reason why a game should make you nauseous in first-person mode once you make adjustments (if you're gaming on console where the FOV slider is usually missing, that's another matter).
i never played bloodlines first person, I always changed the settings.
Oh yeah, BG2 was 2000. I'd grant that one. The rest I think are a lot more debatable: DA:O was a fantastic idea with a very flawed execution and even more flawed sequels (although the trilogy as a whole has had some good moments) and the same with the MASS EFFECT trilogy, although its characters were excellent. The story, er, not so much, especially in the third one. Some outstanding individual moments though.
Let's friendly disagree on those assessments, except of course the ME3 ending. ^^
Definitely a reminder that we miss Classic BioWare. CD Projekt Red's love letter to the fans that accompanied CYBERPUNK 2077's reveal, talking about their focus on single-player, felt like a bit of a rebuke to both BioWare and Bethesda for moving in a multiplayer direction and forgetting where they came from and what made them popular (if only temporarily in Bethesda's case). That might smart with BioWare, as they helped CDPR get off the ground and gave them a lot of technical support on the first WITCHER in the first place.
Yeah, it might be nice if BioWare got the message, but I fear that whatever their ambitions may be, their corporate overlord will screw them up.
Especially since the rumour is that their early work on DRAGON AGE 4 got thrown out in favour of a multiplayer focus, and they'll only get to press on with DA4 is ANTHEM is a big hit (which I suspect it won't be). EA really has not got a clue.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
48 minute gameplay video. I want this NOW.
NSFW language, nudity.