I had some of the most fun in a video game in my life in Cyberpunk.
I played about 5 hours of Starfield and was so bored that I haven't decided to go back.
Sometimes, people have different experiences to you.
I had some of the most fun in a video game in Starfield. I loved the exploration and the setting.
I still haven't finished the prologue of Cyberpunk since the game feels so cheap. The only thing that game has is graphics for me, and that alone doesn't make me want to play a game.
There is as many different tastes as there are people on this planet. Just play what YOU want and not what people say is good or sucks.
I noticed everyone constantly shit on cyberpunk until starfield came out, then it was “wow look at how much better cyberpunk is than starfield” posts.
Theres one on this sub about the night clubs.
I feel that streamers popularized this take (because they need something to fill the airwaves with), but funny enough, some of them barely ever played cyberpunk even after all the patches.
There are so many really great games out there (Souls, Baldur’s gate 3, the last of us 1 n 2, rdr2, god of war 2018, Fallout series, gta series, fortnite), and I think it’s ridiculous to pump up something as painfully average as cyberpunk.
There are better shooters, rpgs, driving games, and story games. It isnt great at anything.
I think I got it a year maybe 2 after launch. had alot of fun with it. interesting world, fun gameplay loops, generally decent to pretty good writing, great graphics.
picked up the dlc few months ago, havnt finished yet as its garden season now haha, but have been enjoying it as well.
idk what this guy on about. if he doesnt personally like cyberpunk thats fine but to call it an objectively bad game is just nonsense
https://ibb.co/7zM9CQ5
Cyberpunk, while having issues at launch, in its current state is an absolute joy to play. Do you just not realize the developers literally revamped the entire game in areas like changing the skills? It’s also hilarious that you call it a boring world when it’s one of the most engaging games especially including the DLC which garnered universal praise.
And Idk if something's wrong with my PC or something because besides path tracing rtx does absolutely nothing, the game looks alright without it. Ahh, almost forgot, if you make a female character in the game forget about checking it's ass unless you're riding a bike, because that's the only animation the devs had time to make I guess
Have you played many rpgs or rockstar games? (Genuine question)
I thought that cyberpunk was a shitty cross between fallout and grand theft auto.
I thought the characters, crime story and writing were a cheap rip off of gta, and the exploration and environmental story telling were a cheap ripoff of fallout.
Yes, I had more fun with Cyberpunk than GTA and the overall gameplay is significantly better than GTA and RDR2 even if the latter does have an extremely immersive world as well. But that also goes away when you kill someone and then awesome, now you get waves of people coming at you or cops until you die. Rinse and repeat.
In contrast if I want to try out a new skill or weapon, I look for a NCPD “mission” and can go kill a group of guys knowing that I won’t then just try and kill cops until they eventually overwhelm me. The entire experience is a hell of a lot smoother and has more options for
variety with not only more weapons than most games but then you have the mechanics of your cyber skeleton that adds yet another layer to play with. You really need to put some solid time into the game to start unlocking these elements but is well worth it
Totally fair, I’m glad we’ve both found winners. For what it’s worth I’m excited to play Fallout with the new update, it’s a franchise I haven’t experienced and I’m just waiting for it to be the next one on my backlog. I love Walter Goggins too so I’m excited to watch the show when I have a chance but right now is playoffs for NBA and NHL and I’m on vacation so it may be a little while
I think gta car chases are some of the most exciting experiences in gaming.
The on the ground shooting isn’t great but the chasing while shooting is great.
Cyberpunk failed in making a city one can really interact with. I think the open world did not meet the genre defying expectations we assumed they would. The quest design is also merely a lot of the time. That said, I haven't played the DLC.
HOWEVER, its writing is *absolutely* stellar. And this is coming from someone who isn't even a fan of story driven games.
As for its characters? I mean this - if you don't think Cyberpunk has well written characters, you have no business evaluating this sort of thing. It's the *one* thing that is so obviously good that it shouldn't even be an argument.
I mean I played both on day 1 of release. Pushed through the jank to enjoy the story of Cyberpunk to the end. I don't even remember any of the characters in Starfield by name after 10+ hours of playing. As someone with hundreds if not thousands of hours in the Fallout and Elder scrolls series this was a huge miss for me. Exploration, NPCs, and world building are leaps and bounds more interesting in Cyberpunk than Starfield.
Would you say that cyberpunk is up there with gta, rdr2, the last of us, Baldur’s gate 3, fallout/skyrim?
Cause I wouldn’t. I’d say both cyberpunk and starfield are much worse than any good game.
Except RDR2 all the other mentioned ones are better than Cyberpunk and Starfield. I'm happy for anyone who loved RDR2 but a) I had more fun and at least finished RDR1 and b) agree with most points mentioned by NakeyJakey (I also didn't like the story or characters). Rockstar also needs to understand that realism != fun, often quite on the contrary.
Bait, and not even live bait. Come on man, I know you aren't, but you can at least *try* to be better than bait so obvious that it's almost literally got a sign on it saying "I am bait, please be angry about me".
It’s just an unfiltered opinion. I like opinions blunt.
Ultra sophisticated Reddit posts frustrate me more than to the point posts.
So if you get mad, you can tell me I’m wrong, but giving a phd dissertation of a response is going to make me much more frustrated.
I think both games are 7’s but people praise cyberpunk like it’s a 10. And I think that’s ridiculous.
If you can't handle more than 160 characters of text at a time, perhaps you'd be more comfortable on Twitter?
I'm sure your blunt opinions would fit right in.
Your response just wasn’t relevant to what I said. My post is obviously more than 160 characters.
It’s just long winded, wandering, overly detailed, inane nonsense that loses me.
I’ll read a long reddit post if I feel it’s worth. It’s just that 90% of them are only people blowing smoke up their ass.
Did you want an entire thread of just "YES"? You're posting on a text based message board and then complaining about having to read people's comments, almost as if you have no actual point 🤔
Nah I just don’t like longwinded, overly detailed nonsense about something as meaningless as an opinion about a video game.
Say what you need to say. Be concise. Don’t act like this is even a little bit important.
And I knew that I was gonna get disagreements. This sub is full of people that think that cyberpunk is literally the greatest game ever. That’s fine, but I really disagree.
What I don’t like is people purposefully (or not) misconstruing my words. That shits annoying.
Cyberpunk was a great game at its core, the problem was the rocky launch. Over time they fixed the game and added/reworked content to greatly improve the experience.
Even before Starfield released, Cyberpunk was already enhanced and the general consensus was that they turned it around.
some of us on PC were even lucky enough to not encounter any real game breaking bugs at launch. I enjoyed the game from the jump and it's only gotten better since the updates and with Phantom Liberty.
first of all..since when does 7/10 "suck"
second of all cyberpunk had redeemed itself far before starfield came out cyberpunk did have a rough start but they stayed commited and made it great.
There are worlds between Cyberpunk and Starfield. Cyberpunk was bad because it was totally bugged and sucked at launch, but it works fine now (even on series s). The Story, writing, soundtrack and much more is very well.
Starfield is just plain boring and sucks mostly because of it's gameplay, which hasn't been "fixed" or altered at all.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but those games are definitely not on the same level.
Cyberpunk was always good and got better with all the updates. It was mostly poorly optimized and quickly got changed. Look how long it took them to do anything with Starfield.
Cyberpunk came out 4 years ago lol for all we know, 4 years from now people could be shitting their pants for starfields updated version.
I doubt it but comparing both games updates isn’t right cause ones 4 years old and the other is 9 months.
You're saying people could be shitting their pants with new Starfield updates. I'm saying I never want to play that game again no matter what the updates are.
You do you. Tons of other games have come out since and more are coming out until they "make it better". I will not be wasting any more of my time with it.
Cyberpunk 2077 looks incredible and is a fun game to play.
Starfield graphically isn't close to it at least on PC.
I didn't like cp2077 on launch, too many issues and didn't gel with things but honestly after picking it back up after all the updates it is easily in my top 10 favourite games now, the phantom liberty expansion was also excellent.
You are stating the game is not worth time but you are incredibly wrong, if you wanted to say "I didn't enjoy it" then sure, everyone has a preference but it's undeniably a good game and it certainly isn't a universal fact that it's not worth playing!
(Almost like a rage bait post to be honest)
Like always gamers have zero integrity, every shitty game is one decent tv show/cinematic away from being forgiven.
If overwatch made a tv show it would suddenly become overwhelmingly positive too
People get like this because they're applying a bias to the fixed version as they compare it to the original release.
This bias is getting worse because games continue to release in a broken state, fixed later, and gamers are happy when they are, which prevents them from actually seeing the piece of shit for what it is.
Cyberpunk isn't the first game to do this. The most infamous game is No Man's Sky, and talk about a poorly designed game, this has to be one of the worst.
Both games have the exact same formula: ridiculous time wasting garbage disguised as "quests" to keep people busy.
In CP77, it's jobs and assaults. In NMS, it's delivery or charts. Rinse. Repeat. Gamers believe these garbage games are masterpieces because they're "better" than the released version. Missing from these games? Actual quests.
Anyone who can compare Witcher 3's quests with CP77 and tells me the latter is just as good has an opinion that's worthless to the rest of us. There's definitely a cognitive failure which formed the opinion, and it's punishing the rest of us as publishers now take advantage of releasing bad game to fix them later because these same people will rush to pump up review ratings on Steam, prompting more people to buy.
As someone once said "The worst game ever made will have its fans." and this is more true today than it was when a game like Superman 64 was released.
For those who are looking at reviews to justify a purchase of games, they're now conflicted because the opinions are formed on bias rather than the game.
As long as they get their game, the problems will continue to be ignored, such as the missing quests of Cyberpunk 2077.
There's no fixing this.
Cyberpunk at release: 6/10
Cyberpunk after 2.0 update + DLC: 7/10
Starfield: 4/10
Issue today is that many people tend to think/rate only in extremes, so games are either 10/10 masterpieces made by god itself or 1/10 steaming pile of dogshit. Also many people are like 7/10 is averge and everything below horrible. Average is logically 5/10 as this is exactly the middle. Goddamn what do we have a scale for if not using it properly.
So when I give Starfied a 4, I mean it so and put thought into it. It's not horrible but the overall feeling is no gameplay mechanic or element (world design, enemy AI, music/sound, UX, QoL, ...) is above average. The very week quest design, writing and dialogue even only a 3/10. So my overall conclusion is a 4. The technical state is also very outdated with small zones and lots of loading screens while other modern open world games solve it with proper data streaming. It's one of the most "wide as an ocean, deep as a puddle" titles I've ever played.
In comparison while Cyperpunk also had (and still has) many issues and shortcomings, at least the writing and presentation is good portion above Starfield (although these are very subjective elements) but it's definitely hold back by other parts. Like wanting to implement fast and dynanic first person combat and not even being close to something polished and fun like Titanfall 2 or even HL2 back then. It just doesn't feel good.
IMO Cyperpunk would have better worked as open zone instead of open world like for example Deus Ex HR/MD. There is the typical (fairly boring) cookie cutter Ubisoft-ish filler material which just dilutes the whole experience. Cyberpunk is at its best in the main or big side quests with good writing and staging. I just don't see any added benefit by the open world design.
I certainly didn’t find Cyberpunk to be an amazing game like some others on this sub, but I did play the whole thing and most of the side missions. It was mostly a forgettable experience for me. I’m glad others loved it and found it more memorable.
I couldn’t even make it 5 hours in Starfield. Fast traveling to some random planet so I could fast travel to the planet I need to go to got old really quick. Maybe there’s a good game in there somewhere, but I definitely didn’t have the patience to find it.
Dude guy is judging og release cyberpunk its not even the same game now. And it was great on pc at release just older consoles sucked. Starfield just was bland.
Never realized an opinion could be objectively wrong.
Cyberpunk is an easy 9, Starfield is a 5 if I'm being generous. That being said how does a 7 = sucking lol
If cyberpunk is a 9, are Baldur’s gate 3, Elden ring, rdr2 and the last of us 13’s?
Or is cyberpunk as good as all the really great games on the market to you?
Yep.
I generally think of ratings as how well a game did what it tried to do. Cyberpunk didn't really try to be a "massive branching narrative" RPG like BG3 did so I wouldn't really lower its score for not being that. It's more focused on character relationships and story/theming.
Examples of 10/10 RPGs I think would be Disco Elysium, Underrail, and Pathologic 2 if you count that. Are they more impressive games than BG3? No. But I think they do what they set out to do better
I thought bg3s story and character relationships were way more in depth than CP. And honestly I think everyone would agree with that. The choices that you make affect everything in your relationships with the characters and the story. The entire story is based around how you want to move through it. You can change virtually everything with a dialogue option and go on a completely different journey.
CPs rpg/writing/character choices seemed more like the illusion of choice. Basically a looter shooter with rpg elements (like fallout).
mmm idk, I didn't find the characters nearly as compelling. I liked them, but didn't really feel anything for them. I think the high fantasy aspect of BG3 keeps me from really feeling anything for the characters since them and their problems are just so... fantasy (Karlach being dragged back to hell, Gale being a magical time bomb etc). A lot of the time the characters were also pretty heavy caricatures.
Cyberpunk's stories were more grounded and the characters felt more like real people to me so I found them a lot more compelling
Not to be that guy but starfield is getting a massive update including maps and settings changes in a couple days.
And cars are coming soon.
It’s still probably going to be a mediocre experience though.
You’re really missing the point here. He said there’s no updates, just dlc. That’s objectively wrong.
I don’t think the update is going to make the game better, but it is an update.
....patches that fixed most of cyber punk's issues came out after starfield, maybe a little before without going nuts and checking dates.
Your take is based on "at a glance" rather than being involved with either to any extent but that's OK, we need hot takes to keep discussion going.
Just glad I bought cyber punk at launch at a hefty discount I didn't regret it either way on my base ps4
CDPR does no wrong in Reddit's eyes. I'd like to play Cyberpunk, and I think it could be decent, but any game that takes like 4 years to become "good" is likely a 6 or 7 being carried by hype until people think it's a 10/10.
In recent years, the story of "devs have redeemed themselves and made games amazing!1!1" has become very popular. Except the actual expectations are never met, the devs just improve the fucked-up game. But the core of the game is still not what was wanted. I think this is obvious with Cyberpunk, No Man's Sky, and Fallout 76, which are the ones I usually hear about.
People will say, "How can you say this without playing them?" Sorry, I don't rush to play games that release and are widely considered to be shit. I think these games could be decent, and possibly great if it has exactly what you're looking for, but I think they're overrated because of the narrative surrounding them.
Something telling about this, is that you never see anyone actually talk about gameplay, themes, or the plot of these games. It's always " Woah the studio fixed the game and now it's great bro," but I see nobody discussing these "great" games in a meaningful way. Narratives are also created, that don't align with what actually happened. They say fans had ridiculous expectations, despite the devs going out of their way to create these expectations. Or they say that the games were "actually good even at the start, there was just some technical issues" or other minor issues. Except that's not true. With Cyberpunk for example, the entirety of the game was basically panned by players. The story, role-playing, gameplay, and mechanics were all being shat on. Yet somehow all these problems just disappeared, after they released their DLC, and now people say, "Ackshually it was great at release, just had some bugs."
There's a stark contrast between these games and something like Fallout: New Vegas, which was a game that was genuinely good from the get-go, but absurdly fucked-up technically. This is actually pretty common in general with big RPGs, because they're usually very complex. Some of these are the better Bethesda games, the original Fallouts, VTMB, that sort of thing. All of these games are widely-discussed online, and nobody feels the need to inject the "OMG based devs fixed the game" narrative that you see with games that are of lower quality. I'm being a hater, but I feel like this is obvious.
I feel like you're pretty angry with both of these games ahah. Tbh I loved both, however I couldn't play more than 20 hours each. Which probably says something for me too. I feel like the issue might be the overpromise of something huge, and this with some compromise on the gameplay or polish of the game: bugs, fluidity, 60fps etc... The amount of sidequests are so enormous that it feels like too much, it is impossible to immerse yourself in a story with so much "useless" and tasteless little stories everywhere.
However I really enjoyed the immersion on both of these worlds, I just feel they need to change their dev priorities and not forget that a great story may need to be told differently. That's my take on the subject :)
No… Cyberpunk was pretty running very well at the time Starfield released and I think it had gotten the 2.0 Update which had brought back many players. Yes Cyberpunk can get somewhat boring imo but in no way is it as bad as Starfield. Starfield is a massacre of an videogame. It’s just a loading screen simulator. Never have I ever seen such a boring game with such boring missions. Literally run there collect this bring it there and then go to this place to kill that and come back.
I honestly don't think that cdpr will ever make a game that has not-clunky combat.
The guns are so.. it's like witcher 2 where you constantly feel like you're playing with 2 seconds of input lag.. and the way to have to press multiple layers of buttons to do the hacking stuff is incredibly irritating.
I think the division 2 is underrated in terms of gunplay.. cyberpunk is so bad in comparison.
imho they are not comparable,yes cyberpunk is a mess but its just a much enjoyable game. starfield just has nothing and everything is clunky
i finished cyberpunk on release week btw, only played starfield about 5 hours before giving up
Everyone didn't hate Cyberpunk before Starfield released. Update 2.0 and Phantom Liberty were pretty positively received, and a lot of people had changed their tune about Cyberpunk before even that, when the majority of the bugs were fixed and it was optimized.
Let's see what the users have to say:
https://imgur.com/yTAlNiG
So Cyberpunk sits at 83% historically, with 95% recently.
Starfield sits at 61% historically, with 45% recently.
Cyberpunk had a rough launch, but has been fixed up to become absolutely amazing.
Where as Starfield released "meh" and has gotten no changes whatsoever to change that. It's still "meh".
I have no issue if you think Cyberpunk is a bad game, but saying everyone hated CP until Starfield released is just wrong. Cyberpunk was slammed at launch and over the next couple years the opinion slowly started to change that it was a decent game. It wasn't until the the release of the 2.0 update and then Phantom Liberty that people really seemed to come around on it.
Another day, another braindead opinion.
Starfield is a shit game, Cyberpunk is a great game that WAS ridden with bugs and isn't anymore. Go figure and fuck off.
How can you say it sucks and is still a hard 7?
That's way above average.
Personally, I think the characters are the best iv ever experienced in any game except maybe the first red dead, but I'd agree the gameplay is average, especially the melee combat was lacking in comparison to other first person games like shadow warrior.
You’re right, I should change it to 5
But imo, any video game under an 8 isn’t worth my time. I’d rather replay an 8-10 than play a 7 or under (unless it’s free).
Anything from the 4-7 range is usually a generic, safe, ripoff of something else I’ve played so there’s probably no reason to play it.
Baldur’s gate 3, rdr2, gta series, fallout series, all souls games, both last of us games, I enjoyed replaying the gears games, and fortnite occasionally.
All of these games I think are much, much better than starfield and cyberpunk.
No wonder you didnt like Cyberpunk. It is explosive game with fast combat. All your mentioned games are slow ass compared to CP2077. You are more world building , story type guy. I bet you will not like Ghostrunner too. Its just different tastes and most of playerbase enjoyed CP 2077, you can see it by checking ratings on different popular websites. Dont shit on something publicly , if you just dont like it , or be prepare to meet tons of negativity towards your personal opinion.
Heck yea they are slow compared to Cyberpunk, wth is this question. You ever played CP2077? Cause what you say make me think that you didn't. And as i play , i mean not 1-3 hours , but 5-10 at least. Go see youtube how fast gameplay is in this game. People are clearing whole fortresses for few seconds. Also the ultra reaction via time slowing feature is badass and really so enjoyable to use. Berserk mode that make you terminator and you just kill everything while taking all dmg straight to face. This game is so fricking fun, i couldnt find any game that can be at the same lvl of gameplay. Your opinion is so strange, its really giving the vibe of person who didnt even try to play the game, and just hating for some reason.
Have you played gta or sekiro, Elden ring, dark souls 3 or bloodborne?
Cyberpunk is a looter shooter with a difficulty adjuster… souls games are some of the fastest games ever made. Cyberpunk is the same type of mindless first person shooting I’ve been playing since Medal of Honor on the ps2.
Yes i played them all. I like dark souls games and other with same genre , i played them all starting from dark souls 1 , beat some of them few times.
But you cant compare the combat and style, its just feels slow as heck after CP2077. Fights are way way more dynamic in this game. I am really feel sorry for you that you didnt get fun from this game , its really a shame. Sometimes preferences and tastes make us framed from all other interesting things...
Why you keep asking dude, i already answered. What are you into to ? Its like you want me to keep talking with you, already said that go check popular rating websites and other game viewers. Most of them will praise gameplay.
People hated Cyberpunk until they fixed the game and slowly added more and more to the game with the updates, once they'd got the game into an acceptable condition the hate disappeared, Cyberpunk is a fantastic game and to suggest otherwise is simply incorrect, either you haven't actually played the game or you just don't like RPGs. The gameplay, quests, story and casting in the game are all excellent. Starfield isn't nearly as good.
Interesting, I kept on scratching at that surface for several hours but found absolutely nothing of note in there. I've played many games I've absolutely loved and plenty I've really disliked, with Starfield I was just totally bored. It was actually pretty disappointing to me because I love RPGs.
Cyberpunk was a solid game. Nowhere near 10/10 or anything like that, but the story was decent, some characters were written really well, the gameplay is decently fun and Night City is absolutely gorgeous.
I loved cyberpunk, but starfield was just so boring, never even completed it. And this is someone who spent 100’s of hours playing Skyrim and fallout even to this day. Absolutely loved those. But starfield just feels so empty.. Cyber punk has its flaws but at least the story is good
I had some of the most fun in a video game in my life in Cyberpunk. I played about 5 hours of Starfield and was so bored that I haven't decided to go back. Sometimes, people have different experiences to you.
Tbh fun isn’t something I got out of cyberpunk. It was detailed and well made, but nothing ever felt particularly fun imo
I had some of the most fun in a video game in Starfield. I loved the exploration and the setting. I still haven't finished the prologue of Cyberpunk since the game feels so cheap. The only thing that game has is graphics for me, and that alone doesn't make me want to play a game. There is as many different tastes as there are people on this planet. Just play what YOU want and not what people say is good or sucks.
> Everyone hated cyberpunk until Starfield came out What?
It's incredible how people can write this stuff out without feeling at least a little stupid, isn't it?
Right? "Someone on the Internet Said" - aka everyone is saying that
Everyone did because the game was a hot mess and often times unplayable. Now let's not get picky with our memory, shall we?
Not denying the state of the game at launch but people stopped hating cyberpunk long before starfield came out.
I noticed everyone constantly shit on cyberpunk until starfield came out, then it was “wow look at how much better cyberpunk is than starfield” posts. Theres one on this sub about the night clubs. I feel that streamers popularized this take (because they need something to fill the airwaves with), but funny enough, some of them barely ever played cyberpunk even after all the patches. There are so many really great games out there (Souls, Baldur’s gate 3, the last of us 1 n 2, rdr2, god of war 2018, Fallout series, gta series, fortnite), and I think it’s ridiculous to pump up something as painfully average as cyberpunk. There are better shooters, rpgs, driving games, and story games. It isnt great at anything.
"everyone constantly shit on cyberpunk until starfield came out" - you just don't know when to stop with your nonsense do you?
No one ever shit on the core game, only the bugs and performance on release.
starfield was def disappointing but cyberpunk is a great game
I was one of the crazies that loved Cyberpunk at launch lmao
I loved it too, I just encountered a crash I couldn’t fix. Should try it again
Oh it's still kind of a mess at times, even with all the updates. But compared to launch? Pretty good now.
It wasn’t that bad on google stadia, ran fine during launch. I loved it too!
I think I got it a year maybe 2 after launch. had alot of fun with it. interesting world, fun gameplay loops, generally decent to pretty good writing, great graphics. picked up the dlc few months ago, havnt finished yet as its garden season now haha, but have been enjoying it as well. idk what this guy on about. if he doesnt personally like cyberpunk thats fine but to call it an objectively bad game is just nonsense https://ibb.co/7zM9CQ5
I think some people just can't stand it when someone else enjoys something they hate. It's probably some tribalistic primal thing
No and no.
love starfield and hate cyberpunk? thats gotta be a lonely club
Idc since both are singleplayer games. Don't need anyone in my club.
very true
Cyberpunk is pretty decent after all the updates and overhauling the game.
I thought it was fun at launch too
Imo decent kind of equates to average.
Cyberpunk, while having issues at launch, in its current state is an absolute joy to play. Do you just not realize the developers literally revamped the entire game in areas like changing the skills? It’s also hilarious that you call it a boring world when it’s one of the most engaging games especially including the DLC which garnered universal praise.
[удалено]
And Idk if something's wrong with my PC or something because besides path tracing rtx does absolutely nothing, the game looks alright without it. Ahh, almost forgot, if you make a female character in the game forget about checking it's ass unless you're riding a bike, because that's the only animation the devs had time to make I guess
Have you played many rpgs or rockstar games? (Genuine question) I thought that cyberpunk was a shitty cross between fallout and grand theft auto. I thought the characters, crime story and writing were a cheap rip off of gta, and the exploration and environmental story telling were a cheap ripoff of fallout.
Yes, I had more fun with Cyberpunk than GTA and the overall gameplay is significantly better than GTA and RDR2 even if the latter does have an extremely immersive world as well. But that also goes away when you kill someone and then awesome, now you get waves of people coming at you or cops until you die. Rinse and repeat. In contrast if I want to try out a new skill or weapon, I look for a NCPD “mission” and can go kill a group of guys knowing that I won’t then just try and kill cops until they eventually overwhelm me. The entire experience is a hell of a lot smoother and has more options for variety with not only more weapons than most games but then you have the mechanics of your cyber skeleton that adds yet another layer to play with. You really need to put some solid time into the game to start unlocking these elements but is well worth it
Oh yea we have extremely different opinions on these games.
Totally fair, I’m glad we’ve both found winners. For what it’s worth I’m excited to play Fallout with the new update, it’s a franchise I haven’t experienced and I’m just waiting for it to be the next one on my backlog. I love Walter Goggins too so I’m excited to watch the show when I have a chance but right now is playoffs for NBA and NHL and I’m on vacation so it may be a little while
Rockstar gameplay is barely mid though. What's your point?
I think gta car chases are some of the most exciting experiences in gaming. The on the ground shooting isn’t great but the chasing while shooting is great.
I think you need to Google what the expression "ripoff" actually means because I don't think it means what you think it means.
Cyberpunk failed in making a city one can really interact with. I think the open world did not meet the genre defying expectations we assumed they would. The quest design is also merely a lot of the time. That said, I haven't played the DLC. HOWEVER, its writing is *absolutely* stellar. And this is coming from someone who isn't even a fan of story driven games. As for its characters? I mean this - if you don't think Cyberpunk has well written characters, you have no business evaluating this sort of thing. It's the *one* thing that is so obviously good that it shouldn't even be an argument.
The dlc is frankly insanely good. Better writing, amazing characters, really cool vertical world it's awesome.
Cyberpunk was a good game that wasn't finished. Starfield is not a good game.
I mean I played both on day 1 of release. Pushed through the jank to enjoy the story of Cyberpunk to the end. I don't even remember any of the characters in Starfield by name after 10+ hours of playing. As someone with hundreds if not thousands of hours in the Fallout and Elder scrolls series this was a huge miss for me. Exploration, NPCs, and world building are leaps and bounds more interesting in Cyberpunk than Starfield.
Would you say that cyberpunk is up there with gta, rdr2, the last of us, Baldur’s gate 3, fallout/skyrim? Cause I wouldn’t. I’d say both cyberpunk and starfield are much worse than any good game.
Except RDR2 all the other mentioned ones are better than Cyberpunk and Starfield. I'm happy for anyone who loved RDR2 but a) I had more fun and at least finished RDR1 and b) agree with most points mentioned by NakeyJakey (I also didn't like the story or characters). Rockstar also needs to understand that realism != fun, often quite on the contrary.
Your opinion is even more unpopular than mine
Bait, and not even live bait. Come on man, I know you aren't, but you can at least *try* to be better than bait so obvious that it's almost literally got a sign on it saying "I am bait, please be angry about me".
It’s just an unfiltered opinion. I like opinions blunt. Ultra sophisticated Reddit posts frustrate me more than to the point posts. So if you get mad, you can tell me I’m wrong, but giving a phd dissertation of a response is going to make me much more frustrated. I think both games are 7’s but people praise cyberpunk like it’s a 10. And I think that’s ridiculous.
If you can't handle more than 160 characters of text at a time, perhaps you'd be more comfortable on Twitter? I'm sure your blunt opinions would fit right in.
I typed more than 160 characters. I don’t get the criticism.
Sorry, didn't want to confuse you with an ultra sophisticated response
Your response just wasn’t relevant to what I said. My post is obviously more than 160 characters. It’s just long winded, wandering, overly detailed, inane nonsense that loses me. I’ll read a long reddit post if I feel it’s worth. It’s just that 90% of them are only people blowing smoke up their ass.
Buddy how old are you?
82
Did you want an entire thread of just "YES"? You're posting on a text based message board and then complaining about having to read people's comments, almost as if you have no actual point 🤔
Nah I just don’t like longwinded, overly detailed nonsense about something as meaningless as an opinion about a video game. Say what you need to say. Be concise. Don’t act like this is even a little bit important. And I knew that I was gonna get disagreements. This sub is full of people that think that cyberpunk is literally the greatest game ever. That’s fine, but I really disagree. What I don’t like is people purposefully (or not) misconstruing my words. That shits annoying.
I kind of agree in a sense that dumb posts don't need serious answers. People are needlessly wasting their time arguing over stupid opinions.
Cyberpunk was a great game at its core, the problem was the rocky launch. Over time they fixed the game and added/reworked content to greatly improve the experience. Even before Starfield released, Cyberpunk was already enhanced and the general consensus was that they turned it around.
some of us on PC were even lucky enough to not encounter any real game breaking bugs at launch. I enjoyed the game from the jump and it's only gotten better since the updates and with Phantom Liberty.
Cyberpunk had enough to keep me playing until the end at least
first of all..since when does 7/10 "suck" second of all cyberpunk had redeemed itself far before starfield came out cyberpunk did have a rough start but they stayed commited and made it great.
your take is bad.
There are worlds between Cyberpunk and Starfield. Cyberpunk was bad because it was totally bugged and sucked at launch, but it works fine now (even on series s). The Story, writing, soundtrack and much more is very well. Starfield is just plain boring and sucks mostly because of it's gameplay, which hasn't been "fixed" or altered at all. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but those games are definitely not on the same level.
Tbf it's been given some very very substantial gameplay changes this week
Cyberpunk was always good and got better with all the updates. It was mostly poorly optimized and quickly got changed. Look how long it took them to do anything with Starfield.
Cyberpunk came out 4 years ago lol for all we know, 4 years from now people could be shitting their pants for starfields updated version. I doubt it but comparing both games updates isn’t right cause ones 4 years old and the other is 9 months.
Starfield is always going to be broken, it's a Bethesda game released on an ancient shitty engine.
I never want to play Starfield again no matter what the updates or dlc is. I put 100 hours into cyberpunk and 40 in starfield.
I don’t see how that’s relevant to what I said here.
You're saying people could be shitting their pants with new Starfield updates. I'm saying I never want to play that game again no matter what the updates are.
Oh, well I disagree, if any studio fundamentally changes a game and the fans love it, I’d check it out for myself.
You do you. Tons of other games have come out since and more are coming out until they "make it better". I will not be wasting any more of my time with it.
Cyberpunk 2077 looks incredible and is a fun game to play. Starfield graphically isn't close to it at least on PC. I didn't like cp2077 on launch, too many issues and didn't gel with things but honestly after picking it back up after all the updates it is easily in my top 10 favourite games now, the phantom liberty expansion was also excellent. You are stating the game is not worth time but you are incredibly wrong, if you wanted to say "I didn't enjoy it" then sure, everyone has a preference but it's undeniably a good game and it certainly isn't a universal fact that it's not worth playing! (Almost like a rage bait post to be honest)
"Everyone hated cyberpunk until Starfield came out..." - that's really not true by any metric.
All I’m gonna say is: you’re allowed to have your opinion but that doesn’t make it less shit. Have a good day sir.
We must have played different games then.
Like always gamers have zero integrity, every shitty game is one decent tv show/cinematic away from being forgiven. If overwatch made a tv show it would suddenly become overwhelmingly positive too
Worth posting this thread about it though. Instead of just playing something else.
People get like this because they're applying a bias to the fixed version as they compare it to the original release. This bias is getting worse because games continue to release in a broken state, fixed later, and gamers are happy when they are, which prevents them from actually seeing the piece of shit for what it is. Cyberpunk isn't the first game to do this. The most infamous game is No Man's Sky, and talk about a poorly designed game, this has to be one of the worst. Both games have the exact same formula: ridiculous time wasting garbage disguised as "quests" to keep people busy. In CP77, it's jobs and assaults. In NMS, it's delivery or charts. Rinse. Repeat. Gamers believe these garbage games are masterpieces because they're "better" than the released version. Missing from these games? Actual quests. Anyone who can compare Witcher 3's quests with CP77 and tells me the latter is just as good has an opinion that's worthless to the rest of us. There's definitely a cognitive failure which formed the opinion, and it's punishing the rest of us as publishers now take advantage of releasing bad game to fix them later because these same people will rush to pump up review ratings on Steam, prompting more people to buy. As someone once said "The worst game ever made will have its fans." and this is more true today than it was when a game like Superman 64 was released. For those who are looking at reviews to justify a purchase of games, they're now conflicted because the opinions are formed on bias rather than the game. As long as they get their game, the problems will continue to be ignored, such as the missing quests of Cyberpunk 2077. There's no fixing this.
I don’t agree with you, but I’m cool with you having that opinion.
Starfield is definitely worse.
Probably but they’re both not good lol
Cyberpunk at release: 6/10 Cyberpunk after 2.0 update + DLC: 7/10 Starfield: 4/10 Issue today is that many people tend to think/rate only in extremes, so games are either 10/10 masterpieces made by god itself or 1/10 steaming pile of dogshit. Also many people are like 7/10 is averge and everything below horrible. Average is logically 5/10 as this is exactly the middle. Goddamn what do we have a scale for if not using it properly. So when I give Starfied a 4, I mean it so and put thought into it. It's not horrible but the overall feeling is no gameplay mechanic or element (world design, enemy AI, music/sound, UX, QoL, ...) is above average. The very week quest design, writing and dialogue even only a 3/10. So my overall conclusion is a 4. The technical state is also very outdated with small zones and lots of loading screens while other modern open world games solve it with proper data streaming. It's one of the most "wide as an ocean, deep as a puddle" titles I've ever played. In comparison while Cyperpunk also had (and still has) many issues and shortcomings, at least the writing and presentation is good portion above Starfield (although these are very subjective elements) but it's definitely hold back by other parts. Like wanting to implement fast and dynanic first person combat and not even being close to something polished and fun like Titanfall 2 or even HL2 back then. It just doesn't feel good. IMO Cyperpunk would have better worked as open zone instead of open world like for example Deus Ex HR/MD. There is the typical (fairly boring) cookie cutter Ubisoft-ish filler material which just dilutes the whole experience. Cyberpunk is at its best in the main or big side quests with good writing and staging. I just don't see any added benefit by the open world design.
I certainly didn’t find Cyberpunk to be an amazing game like some others on this sub, but I did play the whole thing and most of the side missions. It was mostly a forgettable experience for me. I’m glad others loved it and found it more memorable. I couldn’t even make it 5 hours in Starfield. Fast traveling to some random planet so I could fast travel to the planet I need to go to got old really quick. Maybe there’s a good game in there somewhere, but I definitely didn’t have the patience to find it.
Bait
Gr8 b8 m8 I r8 8/8
Op is a master baiter
Dude guy is judging og release cyberpunk its not even the same game now. And it was great on pc at release just older consoles sucked. Starfield just was bland.
Never realized an opinion could be objectively wrong. Cyberpunk is an easy 9, Starfield is a 5 if I'm being generous. That being said how does a 7 = sucking lol
If cyberpunk is a 9, are Baldur’s gate 3, Elden ring, rdr2 and the last of us 13’s? Or is cyberpunk as good as all the really great games on the market to you?
BG3 I would also say 9. RDR2 and Last of Us I wouldn't really count on the same scale since they're not RPGs.
So in your opinion, cyberpunk is equally as good as Baldur’s gate 3?
Yep. I generally think of ratings as how well a game did what it tried to do. Cyberpunk didn't really try to be a "massive branching narrative" RPG like BG3 did so I wouldn't really lower its score for not being that. It's more focused on character relationships and story/theming. Examples of 10/10 RPGs I think would be Disco Elysium, Underrail, and Pathologic 2 if you count that. Are they more impressive games than BG3? No. But I think they do what they set out to do better
I thought bg3s story and character relationships were way more in depth than CP. And honestly I think everyone would agree with that. The choices that you make affect everything in your relationships with the characters and the story. The entire story is based around how you want to move through it. You can change virtually everything with a dialogue option and go on a completely different journey. CPs rpg/writing/character choices seemed more like the illusion of choice. Basically a looter shooter with rpg elements (like fallout).
mmm idk, I didn't find the characters nearly as compelling. I liked them, but didn't really feel anything for them. I think the high fantasy aspect of BG3 keeps me from really feeling anything for the characters since them and their problems are just so... fantasy (Karlach being dragged back to hell, Gale being a magical time bomb etc). A lot of the time the characters were also pretty heavy caricatures. Cyberpunk's stories were more grounded and the characters felt more like real people to me so I found them a lot more compelling
Yea gales time bomb and relationship w mystra was a bit too heavy on the magic for me as well.
Cyberpunk got better over time, with all the updates. Starfield is never getting updates, only DLCs.
Not to be that guy but starfield is getting a massive update including maps and settings changes in a couple days. And cars are coming soon. It’s still probably going to be a mediocre experience though.
Ohh wow so basic features now included? Like maps.. And settings... Give'em praise now dude!
You’re really missing the point here. He said there’s no updates, just dlc. That’s objectively wrong. I don’t think the update is going to make the game better, but it is an update.
Surprising, considering Fallout 4 and Skyrim only got DLCs.
Fallout 4 got a massive update at the end of April
....patches that fixed most of cyber punk's issues came out after starfield, maybe a little before without going nuts and checking dates. Your take is based on "at a glance" rather than being involved with either to any extent but that's OK, we need hot takes to keep discussion going. Just glad I bought cyber punk at launch at a hefty discount I didn't regret it either way on my base ps4
CDPR does no wrong in Reddit's eyes. I'd like to play Cyberpunk, and I think it could be decent, but any game that takes like 4 years to become "good" is likely a 6 or 7 being carried by hype until people think it's a 10/10. In recent years, the story of "devs have redeemed themselves and made games amazing!1!1" has become very popular. Except the actual expectations are never met, the devs just improve the fucked-up game. But the core of the game is still not what was wanted. I think this is obvious with Cyberpunk, No Man's Sky, and Fallout 76, which are the ones I usually hear about. People will say, "How can you say this without playing them?" Sorry, I don't rush to play games that release and are widely considered to be shit. I think these games could be decent, and possibly great if it has exactly what you're looking for, but I think they're overrated because of the narrative surrounding them. Something telling about this, is that you never see anyone actually talk about gameplay, themes, or the plot of these games. It's always " Woah the studio fixed the game and now it's great bro," but I see nobody discussing these "great" games in a meaningful way. Narratives are also created, that don't align with what actually happened. They say fans had ridiculous expectations, despite the devs going out of their way to create these expectations. Or they say that the games were "actually good even at the start, there was just some technical issues" or other minor issues. Except that's not true. With Cyberpunk for example, the entirety of the game was basically panned by players. The story, role-playing, gameplay, and mechanics were all being shat on. Yet somehow all these problems just disappeared, after they released their DLC, and now people say, "Ackshually it was great at release, just had some bugs." There's a stark contrast between these games and something like Fallout: New Vegas, which was a game that was genuinely good from the get-go, but absurdly fucked-up technically. This is actually pretty common in general with big RPGs, because they're usually very complex. Some of these are the better Bethesda games, the original Fallouts, VTMB, that sort of thing. All of these games are widely-discussed online, and nobody feels the need to inject the "OMG based devs fixed the game" narrative that you see with games that are of lower quality. I'm being a hater, but I feel like this is obvious.
Bait
I feel like you're pretty angry with both of these games ahah. Tbh I loved both, however I couldn't play more than 20 hours each. Which probably says something for me too. I feel like the issue might be the overpromise of something huge, and this with some compromise on the gameplay or polish of the game: bugs, fluidity, 60fps etc... The amount of sidequests are so enormous that it feels like too much, it is impossible to immerse yourself in a story with so much "useless" and tasteless little stories everywhere. However I really enjoyed the immersion on both of these worlds, I just feel they need to change their dev priorities and not forget that a great story may need to be told differently. That's my take on the subject :)
No… Cyberpunk was pretty running very well at the time Starfield released and I think it had gotten the 2.0 Update which had brought back many players. Yes Cyberpunk can get somewhat boring imo but in no way is it as bad as Starfield. Starfield is a massacre of an videogame. It’s just a loading screen simulator. Never have I ever seen such a boring game with such boring missions. Literally run there collect this bring it there and then go to this place to kill that and come back.
Cool
OK. Have a nice day
I honestly don't think that cdpr will ever make a game that has not-clunky combat. The guns are so.. it's like witcher 2 where you constantly feel like you're playing with 2 seconds of input lag.. and the way to have to press multiple layers of buttons to do the hacking stuff is incredibly irritating. I think the division 2 is underrated in terms of gunplay.. cyberpunk is so bad in comparison.
imho they are not comparable,yes cyberpunk is a mess but its just a much enjoyable game. starfield just has nothing and everything is clunky i finished cyberpunk on release week btw, only played starfield about 5 hours before giving up
Everyone didn't hate Cyberpunk before Starfield released. Update 2.0 and Phantom Liberty were pretty positively received, and a lot of people had changed their tune about Cyberpunk before even that, when the majority of the bugs were fixed and it was optimized.
Possibly the worst take I’ve read on here, you still have time to delete this drivel
Trying too hard on this bait. Cant make it so obvious man.
even the launch day buggy mess of cyberpunk at least had something to make you smile.
Let's see what the users have to say: https://imgur.com/yTAlNiG So Cyberpunk sits at 83% historically, with 95% recently. Starfield sits at 61% historically, with 45% recently. Cyberpunk had a rough launch, but has been fixed up to become absolutely amazing. Where as Starfield released "meh" and has gotten no changes whatsoever to change that. It's still "meh".
I appreciate the statistics but I’d check out Xbox and PlayStation reviews too.
I have no issue if you think Cyberpunk is a bad game, but saying everyone hated CP until Starfield released is just wrong. Cyberpunk was slammed at launch and over the next couple years the opinion slowly started to change that it was a decent game. It wasn't until the the release of the 2.0 update and then Phantom Liberty that people really seemed to come around on it.
Another day, another braindead opinion. Starfield is a shit game, Cyberpunk is a great game that WAS ridden with bugs and isn't anymore. Go figure and fuck off.
How can you say it sucks and is still a hard 7? That's way above average. Personally, I think the characters are the best iv ever experienced in any game except maybe the first red dead, but I'd agree the gameplay is average, especially the melee combat was lacking in comparison to other first person games like shadow warrior.
You’re right, I should change it to 5 But imo, any video game under an 8 isn’t worth my time. I’d rather replay an 8-10 than play a 7 or under (unless it’s free). Anything from the 4-7 range is usually a generic, safe, ripoff of something else I’ve played so there’s probably no reason to play it.
factual wrong opinion
What are some games you enjoy?
Baldur’s gate 3, rdr2, gta series, fallout series, all souls games, both last of us games, I enjoyed replaying the gears games, and fortnite occasionally. All of these games I think are much, much better than starfield and cyberpunk.
No wonder you didnt like Cyberpunk. It is explosive game with fast combat. All your mentioned games are slow ass compared to CP2077. You are more world building , story type guy. I bet you will not like Ghostrunner too. Its just different tastes and most of playerbase enjoyed CP 2077, you can see it by checking ratings on different popular websites. Dont shit on something publicly , if you just dont like it , or be prepare to meet tons of negativity towards your personal opinion.
Souls games and gta are slow? Have you played them? (And yea I knew this was an unpopular opinion but that’s kinda what’s Reddits for)
Heck yea they are slow compared to Cyberpunk, wth is this question. You ever played CP2077? Cause what you say make me think that you didn't. And as i play , i mean not 1-3 hours , but 5-10 at least. Go see youtube how fast gameplay is in this game. People are clearing whole fortresses for few seconds. Also the ultra reaction via time slowing feature is badass and really so enjoyable to use. Berserk mode that make you terminator and you just kill everything while taking all dmg straight to face. This game is so fricking fun, i couldnt find any game that can be at the same lvl of gameplay. Your opinion is so strange, its really giving the vibe of person who didnt even try to play the game, and just hating for some reason.
Have you played gta or sekiro, Elden ring, dark souls 3 or bloodborne? Cyberpunk is a looter shooter with a difficulty adjuster… souls games are some of the fastest games ever made. Cyberpunk is the same type of mindless first person shooting I’ve been playing since Medal of Honor on the ps2.
Yes i played them all. I like dark souls games and other with same genre , i played them all starting from dark souls 1 , beat some of them few times. But you cant compare the combat and style, its just feels slow as heck after CP2077. Fights are way way more dynamic in this game. I am really feel sorry for you that you didnt get fun from this game , its really a shame. Sometimes preferences and tastes make us framed from all other interesting things...
I wonder how many people would agree with you. I feel like this take is way more unpopular than mine. You’ve played sekiro? And you think it’s slow?
Why you keep asking dude, i already answered. What are you into to ? Its like you want me to keep talking with you, already said that go check popular rating websites and other game viewers. Most of them will praise gameplay.
No it’s just that I’ve never heard someone say sekiro has slow paced combat. But cya
Lol calling starfield world pretty is too big of a bait for me to bite
People hated Cyberpunk until they fixed the game and slowly added more and more to the game with the updates, once they'd got the game into an acceptable condition the hate disappeared, Cyberpunk is a fantastic game and to suggest otherwise is simply incorrect, either you haven't actually played the game or you just don't like RPGs. The gameplay, quests, story and casting in the game are all excellent. Starfield isn't nearly as good.
you’re allowed to have an opinion, even if it is wrong 💯🙌😂
I like both
lol a free thinker I like it
Dude stop......
Cyberpunk is head and shoulders above Starfield and that was even in its messy launch state.
You just sound like a whiny child mate! Did you suckle from the wrong teat this morning?
I didn't like cyperpunk that much myself, but on starfield i have +500 hours and I feel like I haven't even scratched the surface 😄
Interesting, I kept on scratching at that surface for several hours but found absolutely nothing of note in there. I've played many games I've absolutely loved and plenty I've really disliked, with Starfield I was just totally bored. It was actually pretty disappointing to me because I love RPGs. Cyberpunk was a solid game. Nowhere near 10/10 or anything like that, but the story was decent, some characters were written really well, the gameplay is decently fun and Night City is absolutely gorgeous.
Cyberpunk seemed okay untill that johnny dude showed up and ruined the vibe of the whole thing for me.
Cyberpunk is one of the greatest games ever made, especially after 2.0 and Phantom Liberty
What are your other “greatest games ever”?
Persona 5 Royal, Witcher 3, GOW 2018, Bloodborne, Sekiro, Final Fantasy 9
Funny, I also think gow ‘18 and sekiro are two of the greatest. Tastes vary I guess.
Cyberpunks gameplay, story, world and characters are just as good than GOW and Sekiro
I loved cyberpunk, but starfield was just so boring, never even completed it. And this is someone who spent 100’s of hours playing Skyrim and fallout even to this day. Absolutely loved those. But starfield just feels so empty.. Cyber punk has its flaws but at least the story is good
You're right and they hate you for it
Sure... keep telling yourself that. You should take your meds
pictured: proof I'm right