I hope this doesn’t make them think they can do this again though. This should make them realise they should’ve always gave the Devs more time to cook or been more realistic with scope from the get go
A publicly traded company prioritizing consumer satisfaction over short term profits? Learning from their “mistakes” after they still got a shit ton of money for it anyways and probably will if they do it again? I’m not banking on it.
It being released in a essentially a beta state with a terrible UI? half the loot being a bitch to access because you always cast igni? Game breaking bugs and glitch’s? Hard crashes?
I don’t think they have released one game that was actually release ready yet.
CP2077 was far worse, but that doesn’t mean the Witcher 3 was okay, it was still absolutely botched.
I’m not downplaying anything, but comparing a dumpster to a dumpster fire and saying they are the same thing is, at best, a little misleading.
The release of Witcher 3 was bad, but it was industry standard bad. Cyberpunk shipped straight up broken and incomplete. It has been fundamentally reworked at least twice since launch.
I don’t think anyone is apologizing for The Witcher 3 at launch, but let’s not pretend they are the same thing. There are more shades than black and white.
It’s more like both are tornados and one is an F3 and the other being an F5. You’re being disingenuous in defending CDPR for continually inexcusable work.
An industry standard bad? What’s that even mean? At that point in time games were shipping complete still and not in a beta state.
Its always hilarious the excuses people come up with, neither are excusable, yet here you are justifying one… yeesh, give your head a shake.
In my experience it was much less buggy at launch than for example Elder Scrolls: Oblivion.
I didn’t experience any game-breaking bugs, just ones that harmed immersion.
There was a bit of T-posing, the occasional floating prop/animation bug, and once I got launched into the desert when climbing through a window.
No crashes to desktop, no broken progression.
It probably helped that I was happy with the game they delivered rather than getting hung up on what may have been promised.
bethesda games are known to be shit and buggy since forever and they mostly don’t even fix em after years it’s just how they operate . which isnt something ppl should normalize even sea-dogs / not developed by them - morrowind - oblivion all had these issues bethesda is really not a rolemodel on these things
Yes, just wanted to contrast the reception they got. Bethesda games don’t generally attract as much ire for the bugs. People expect them and tolerate them (to an extent). Cyberpunk 2077 was a totally broken mess according to the internet, while the Elder Scrolls are the greatest thing ever.
I had crashes to the desktop about every 4th area transition in Oblivion and it still didn’t bother me too much, since it had just saved and took less than a minute to get back into the game.
Some bugs - even total crashes - can still be put up with just fine.
Because bethesda ( unfortunately ) got grandfathered in to making very good open world games FULL OF BUGS AND kinda got away with it undeservedly so ( kinda like how pokemon gets away with making mediocre games coz they were the first . like imagine call of duty ( as shit as they are ) making 2 versions of games and sellling you different weapons on each and you gottta payy 140 dollars :D if you want full content. but ppl are kinda waking up starfield was criticized more than their last games etc… ( id say cyberpunk was still worse than most elder scroll games though ( but still totally agreee with you different fan bases treat games differently both arent ok.
Anecdotally, I feel like there is some survivorship bias going on here. I’ve seen plenty of complaints about Bethesda bugs over the years, but people that are truly bothered by it (me!) have sworn off all their games and thus have no reason to talk about them anymore. The only ones left playing are those that still have some enjoyment/respect for Bethesda games. Cyberpunk felt like more of a “mainstream” hit so it makes sense there was more backlash.
What I think is astonishing to some people lately about Cyberpunk, is that they got most of their information from the popular channels on the internet. Despite its name, these channels (reddit r/all, Twitter, etc) are a (loud) minority of the actual opinions.
Pretty much every one I talked to IRL about Cyberpunk was aware of the controversy, but had a much more nuanced opinion than I was seeing online. Many of them enjoyed it and weren’t really experiencing that many bugs (myself included). But this wasn’t an “allowed” opinion online. Anyone who said the game was enjoyable or they didn’t personally experience many bugs were attacked for being a CDPR fanboy (myself included) and down voted.
Honestly though, I believe the early issues with the game were mostly on consoles. On a decently specced PC, the game would run nicely right after launch, with some bugs, but nothing game breaking.
I got it right after launch day and enjoyed myself quite a bit with it. The police and the way the cars drove were the things that bothered me the most.
I remember hearing even some high specced pcs were having issues and you had to essentially be lucky that you had a configuration that they had the time to optimise for. Just having the best gpu wasn’t enough, for example
True, though that shouldn’t give anyone dev or publisher the right to release a broken game on consoles because it works on PC. Either postpone the PC release date until the console issues are fixed, or release as a PC exclusive until the same. Part of the reason the game was so successful with phantom liberty is that they stopped previous gen console work so they could only focus on hardware that could actually support the game. As with many devs, their partnerships fucked them, getting pressure from Sony, MS, and Nvidia to release the game before it was a polished product
I don’t remember it being that bad on my 1070 mobile laptop (8th gen Intel i5 H if I’m not mistaken), but it was sub 25 fps also. On my PC it ran better, but after upgrading to a 3080 with a 5800X3D was when it ran smoothly at higher resolutions, although the game also had received some updates by then.
I played it on a pc that was ok at the time and the physics engine glitched out so things that were supposed to be sitting still on top of/next to each other would randomly collide and sometimes fly off. Still had fun with the game though.
I had some cars that were following an invisible road above where the real road was a few times, and although that broke immersion a bit, I also still had a lot of fun with the game.
I hope this doesn’t make them think they can do this again though. This should make them realise they should’ve always gave the Devs more time to cook or been more realistic with scope from the get go
A publicly traded company prioritizing consumer satisfaction over short term profits? Learning from their “mistakes” after they still got a shit ton of money for it anyways and probably will if they do it again? I’m not banking on it.
People already seem to forget this isn’t the first time, the release of Witcher 3 was horrendous as well.
Geralt’s flowing locks caused Nvidia cards to crash comes to mind.
I’m not so sure we’re talking about the same scale of horrendous here.
It being released in a essentially a beta state with a terrible UI? half the loot being a bitch to access because you always cast igni? Game breaking bugs and glitch’s? Hard crashes?
I don’t think they have released one game that was actually release ready yet.
CP2077 was far worse, but that doesn’t mean the Witcher 3 was okay, it was still absolutely botched.
This is literally a rewording of what I just said.
Sounds more like downplaying the severity of one.
I’m not downplaying anything, but comparing a dumpster to a dumpster fire and saying they are the same thing is, at best, a little misleading.
The release of Witcher 3 was bad, but it was industry standard bad. Cyberpunk shipped straight up broken and incomplete. It has been fundamentally reworked at least twice since launch.
I don’t think anyone is apologizing for The Witcher 3 at launch, but let’s not pretend they are the same thing. There are more shades than black and white.
It’s more like both are tornados and one is an F3 and the other being an F5. You’re being disingenuous in defending CDPR for continually inexcusable work.
An industry standard bad? What’s that even mean? At that point in time games were shipping complete still and not in a beta state.
Its always hilarious the excuses people come up with, neither are excusable, yet here you are justifying one… yeesh, give your head a shake.
Strangely enough, I didn’t have any game-breaking bugs or crashes and I played it at launch. I guess I was lucky.
I had the quest glitch where you could no longer progress the story. It was also in the later 25% of the game, so 80ish hours in.
Lol I was gonna say
What a naive and unrealistic outlook on how the world works
But you already said what I was gonna say but smarter
But they can, because it seems like most gamers have goldfish memory, and they forgot/forgave the shitty launch and first years
My thought coming into this thread. Plenty of people here sucking their dick and forgetting the terrible launch. They earn what they deserve.
i bought into it and hate that its getting so much praise.
fixing the garbage they released is bare minimum.
I still think this game is shit since I was subjected to the release version and haven’t picked it back up ever since.
Fuck this game and the management that fucked it all up.
And steam reviews prioritize reviews over the last 30 calendar days…
In my experience it was much less buggy at launch than for example Elder Scrolls: Oblivion. I didn’t experience any game-breaking bugs, just ones that harmed immersion. There was a bit of T-posing, the occasional floating prop/animation bug, and once I got launched into the desert when climbing through a window. No crashes to desktop, no broken progression. It probably helped that I was happy with the game they delivered rather than getting hung up on what may have been promised.
bethesda games are known to be shit and buggy since forever and they mostly don’t even fix em after years it’s just how they operate . which isnt something ppl should normalize even sea-dogs / not developed by them - morrowind - oblivion all had these issues bethesda is really not a rolemodel on these things
Yes, just wanted to contrast the reception they got. Bethesda games don’t generally attract as much ire for the bugs. People expect them and tolerate them (to an extent). Cyberpunk 2077 was a totally broken mess according to the internet, while the Elder Scrolls are the greatest thing ever.
I had crashes to the desktop about every 4th area transition in Oblivion and it still didn’t bother me too much, since it had just saved and took less than a minute to get back into the game.
Some bugs - even total crashes - can still be put up with just fine.
Because bethesda ( unfortunately ) got grandfathered in to making very good open world games FULL OF BUGS AND kinda got away with it undeservedly so ( kinda like how pokemon gets away with making mediocre games coz they were the first . like imagine call of duty ( as shit as they are ) making 2 versions of games and sellling you different weapons on each and you gottta payy 140 dollars :D if you want full content. but ppl are kinda waking up starfield was criticized more than their last games etc… ( id say cyberpunk was still worse than most elder scroll games though ( but still totally agreee with you different fan bases treat games differently both arent ok.
Anecdotally, I feel like there is some survivorship bias going on here. I’ve seen plenty of complaints about Bethesda bugs over the years, but people that are truly bothered by it (me!) have sworn off all their games and thus have no reason to talk about them anymore. The only ones left playing are those that still have some enjoyment/respect for Bethesda games. Cyberpunk felt like more of a “mainstream” hit so it makes sense there was more backlash.
What I think is astonishing to some people lately about Cyberpunk, is that they got most of their information from the popular channels on the internet. Despite its name, these channels (reddit r/all, Twitter, etc) are a (loud) minority of the actual opinions.
Pretty much every one I talked to IRL about Cyberpunk was aware of the controversy, but had a much more nuanced opinion than I was seeing online. Many of them enjoyed it and weren’t really experiencing that many bugs (myself included). But this wasn’t an “allowed” opinion online. Anyone who said the game was enjoyable or they didn’t personally experience many bugs were attacked for being a CDPR fanboy (myself included) and down voted.
Winning in the end absolutely means they will do it if this was the most cost effective method.
There’s no chance this won’t happen again IMO (though since they abandoned their own engine maybe it won’t be as buggy this time).
The distributers that set the rrlease date will never learn.
Honestly though, I believe the early issues with the game were mostly on consoles. On a decently specced PC, the game would run nicely right after launch, with some bugs, but nothing game breaking. I got it right after launch day and enjoyed myself quite a bit with it. The police and the way the cars drove were the things that bothered me the most.
I remember hearing even some high specced pcs were having issues and you had to essentially be lucky that you had a configuration that they had the time to optimise for. Just having the best gpu wasn’t enough, for example
thats was just a loud minority talking about super max setting with Raytracing and 4k
Weren’t they specifically advertising for that? The criticism is valid if they were.
Not that I remember, true that it didn’t handle the last gen consoles, and that it was marketed as quite demanding
Sadly “minimum” or “recommended” just tells us the game runs, not that it runs well
Recommended is absolutely meant to be “the game runs well on this” not just it runs
The thing is what is the consensus of “runs well”? Is it a FPS constant? No glitches? Fast loads?
My point is, a game can come shitty and run a constant 30 fps under the “recommended” since that’s what they thought was appropriate
Is a gray area that should be more descriptive, not sure why downvote me
I had a decent AMD card which ran it very well, but still had a bunch of artifacts like Judy’s head blocking reflections for the whole lake.
True, though that shouldn’t give anyone dev or publisher the right to release a broken game on consoles because it works on PC. Either postpone the PC release date until the console issues are fixed, or release as a PC exclusive until the same. Part of the reason the game was so successful with phantom liberty is that they stopped previous gen console work so they could only focus on hardware that could actually support the game. As with many devs, their partnerships fucked them, getting pressure from Sony, MS, and Nvidia to release the game before it was a polished product
You’re certainly right about that!
I tried playing on the lowest possible settings with a 1070 and averaged around 14fps :/
I still finished the game because it was awesome, but haven’t revisited it ever since.
And what CPU
It’s an AMD Athlon!
Totally fine for gaming in 2024.
I don’t remember it being that bad on my 1070 mobile laptop (8th gen Intel i5 H if I’m not mistaken), but it was sub 25 fps also. On my PC it ran better, but after upgrading to a 3080 with a 5800X3D was when it ran smoothly at higher resolutions, although the game also had received some updates by then.
I played it on a pc that was ok at the time and the physics engine glitched out so things that were supposed to be sitting still on top of/next to each other would randomly collide and sometimes fly off. Still had fun with the game though.
I had some cars that were following an invisible road above where the real road was a few times, and although that broke immersion a bit, I also still had a lot of fun with the game.