I Think I Figured Out Why Cyberpunk Sux

You don't get to define whats an open world game though, you can say whether its bad or good but Cyberpunk by definition is open world because of the simple fact that you can do quests out of order. I heavily overlevel the main quests because I do side quests. I decide to play this way, something that I am not allowed to do in a game that is not open world, like PoE which requires you to do things in an exact order.

Also, in my quote I was referring to what you said - that there are no consequences. Of course there are, otherwise some content would not be closed behind certain actions.

"

BearCares wrote:

...

And I think the class action suit or whatever has to do with the fact that the investor's money (in my theory anyway) was used to develop an engine rather than a game. And now the investors will only get money from the sale of this husk of a game. And they will be completley left out of whatever CDPR manages to get from licensing Red Engine.

So they want their cut. That's my theory. Yup.

That is interesting.

I tried to find out what was going on specifically with "class action" lawsuits and the like. It seems several ambulance-chasers have stepped up to "serve" the public by filing class-action lawsuits... From what I gathered from the one filed in Poland, they're doing so for those investors who feel defrauded by the release of the game in terms of misrepresentation. (The cite is somewhere in my friggin' search history. It's a common google hit, though.)

I found one filed in the US, via Polygon, here:

https://www.polygon.com/2020/12/24/22199252/cyberpunk-2077-cd-projekt-class-action-lawsuit-filed

Scribd copy

Basically, they're suing because they claim CDProjekt Red's misrepresentation of their game led to overinflated share prices, which they bought. But, then "reality" inserted itself to reveal "the game suxxors" or some such legalese, and the shares lost value because of that fraudulent misrepresentation.

I couldn't find anything relating to the parallel development of the engine used to build the game.

BUT, your assertion could be true for actual principal investors. It wouldn't mean dookey for shareholders, but if there are investors who have contingencies based upon the creation of a product, then... it's an interesting thing. :)

In the case that these sorts of investors financed production of "the game", it's going to maybe rely on the exact wording and nature of their agreement. Do investors have a right to any and all assets developed in association with the work being financed? Hmmm.... I don't think an angel investor has rights to "everything" associated with the development of a specific product.

In any event, it's a pretty interesting thing you've put forward. Thankfully, I do not have the Sign of Cain stamped on my forward and, thus, am not an attorney... I know an IP Attorney, but calling him and asking about this would cost $250.00. :)

IMO, anyone suing based on "not getting the final product that was promised" can go pound sand and should enjoy the attorney's fees they'll incur, less contingency offers. Those suing based on a fraudulently inflated share price... Eh, it's too early for that and common product development in that industry would seem to indicate they can go pound sand, too.

I am not aware of one game developer that has been successfully sued for only showing game footage from one platform. And, it's not common practice for developers to show game teaser footage from every single platform on which the game will be released. In fact, it's extremely common for game developers to only show "rendered footage," which means the footage is "derived" and not actually representative of an "in-game player experience." (ie: One scene, with uber-settings rendered on a render farm that costs $1000.00 an hour to run, just for cooling...)

If "Aliens: Colonial Marines" can be squirted out into the marketplace without incurring a "class action" lawsuit, I imagine CDProjekt Red is fairly "safe." I don't think Cyberpunk's footage is as of a clear misrepresentation as A:CM's was.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aliens:_Colonial_Marines#Controversy_and_lawsuit


I'll continue trying to find a suit involving the engine vs the completed product.

PS: There are a number of lawsuits in the works in both the US, linked, and abroad. There is most certainly blood in the water surrounding this fiasco.

"

Johny_Snow wrote:

You don't get to define whats an open world game though, you can say whether its bad or good but Cyberpunk by definition is open world because of the simple fact that you can do quests out of order....

Just using your quote as a jumping-off point. :)

OK, this whole concept of "Open World" gaming is... pretty darn interesting.

I imagine we have all run into an "open world game" that doesn't quite seem the same as our other "open world game" experiences. Right? Haven't most of us drilled down game "tags" in order to find a specific genre of games, become excited when seeing game tags applied to a game, bought that game at least partially, if not wholly, based on that tag and then... "WTF THIS SUX IS NOT GAEM LIKE IT SAY!"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_world

^-- This wiki says an open-world game is very nearly literally "everything." In the most strict sense, any game that is not entirely linear is, at least according to this article, "open world." (I am not confident in that wiki. For instance, its says that it's typical of open-world games to not have "loading screens." ... That's a BS kind of mechanical interpretation since the definition is supposed to be in regards to a game "experience," regardless of technological constraints.

Anyway, the whole point is that yesterday's games are not like today's games.

The "AD&D "Gold Box"" series of fantasy roleplaying games were decidedly linear in the players experience of progressing through the game.

"The Elder Scrolls" series of games are decidedly non-linear games, with "Quests" that can be fulfilled in order to "win" or "progress" through the game, but that do not have to be completed in order for the player to experience the game.

IF there's anything in Cyberpunk 2077 that is "locked behind a quest wall" in terms of "game content" then, IMO, it is not "open world."

Note: "Rimworld" is "open-world." Yet, it has game content locked behind "research." That lock doesn't disqualify it from being an open-world experience.

Anyway, I only responded to this particular thing because I'm ticked off at Steam devs for being able to tag their game with anything under the Sun with seemingly no reprecussions whatsoever at all... nones.

It should come as no surprise that game developers will most certainly try to shove their games into as many "applicable" genre types as they can possible do up-and-to the point of blatantly insulting anyone who looks at their game..

I tried to help a fellow poster here and during my searches came across the "Steam Link" as being tagged as a "Survival Game." WTF? And, the list of "Racing Games" in Steam is friggin' similarly stoopid...

https://www.pathofexile.com/forum/view-thread/3001288/page/2

I've been looking for a specific "survival" open world game that I saw footage of years ago... I've been looking for this friggin' game for friggin' years. But, wtf /rant /rant /rant... How can I find it when "Animal Crossing" is clogging up my "survival game open world" search results? :)

Sorry but you are talking nonsense. These things are called quests chains - you can choose which quest chain you embark on and when you do it. The same concept as in GTA where you have several main guys you do work for and you unlock their later quests after you complete their initial ones. It is literally the same system. So if you argue that Cyberpunk is not open world GTA is also not open world.

when i think of open world, i think of a world which happens regardless of your interaction with it or not.

as in, theres a world and you're just a part of it.

ways this manifests into game experience is that you can go to different areas (ideally anytime you want) and do things outside of main quest objectives. in skyrim you could go to different towns, pick up different quests, or even just go explore everything and clear dungeons etc.

now while i wouldn't categorize Final Fantasy 7 as open world, it even had more outside things you could do than Cyberpunk as far as i could tell. you could go to the gold saucer, race chocobos, play arcade games. hell you can breed chocobos then go explore the whole map and find secret areas etc.

cyberpunk does have side quests and stuff, but as far as i can tell they're extremely generic, basic, take like 1 minute to complete, and thats really it. you can't go to a restaurant, you can't really interact with anyone, no NPCs have a purpose other than making the world look big, and there really isn't any side things you can do other than those specific and set side quests.

i personally wouldn't categorize cyberpunk as open world just because there are side quests. it has the illusion of open world and maybe it pulls off the bare minimum to be considered it technically, but its a bad iteration of it.

Do you even play? Probably not. I remember a quest where the woman you need to kill offers you a deal. Doesn't change anything in the grand scheme of things but it is a different way to finish. Not to mention the numerous quests which reward you for being sneaky.

Also, have fun trying to beat them on very hard in a minute, haha

Megaman, Metroid, Castlevania allow you to do the missions out of order but they are not open world games. Final Fantasy 7 is linear with side missions, and it's not open world either...I'll clarify what an open world game means to me:

Open world game has to be simulate self suffiecincy to an adequate enough degree to where it feels like there is a world that acts and exists independantly of the player and the main plot.

For example... Fall Out New Vegas. I ignored the hell out of the main quest for dam near 100 hours. I went exactly where I KNEW the developers did not want me to go. In the beginning of the game there is a desert full of death claws. So I went in that direction. I found some shops at the end of the desert and I stole a bunch of energy guns and trivialized all the enemies in teh game thereafter.

That's what I wanted to do in Cyberpunk. But I've yet to feel rewarded for going off the beaten path. In fact, it seems like they try to PUNISH you for going off the rails. For example GTA gives you a FUN experience when you break the law... probably because breaking the law is one of the game's primary themes... SAME AS CYBERPUNK. But instead of giving you a fun experience they teleport the cops in who do nothing but shoot you and look at you like:

"Well... do you really want to play this game like this? Or do you want to go back to the linear story and do what the developers think that you ought to be doing?"

It's like they put so much ANTI-FUN into the outlaw side of the game... and ANTI-POTENTIAL because the cops lead straight to nothing... there is no fun chase or AI to contend with it's just basically a GLOBAL DOT call COPS' BULLETS that hit you from every angle... The point being so as to TRAIN the players NOT to play that way.

https://youtu.be/SNqWPtcXk5w

What you are saying is entirely subjective. You can say that Cyberpunk is a bad open world but it is still open world, there is no doubt about that.

"

Johny_Snow wrote:

What you are saying is entirely subjective. You can say that Cyberpunk is a bad open world but it is still open world, there is no doubt about that.

I think you're letting the graphics effect your opinion of the game. Here is a video clip of Cyberpunk reduced down to its most essential elements. So - the next gen graphics.

This [open] world is an illusion, exile.


https://youtu.be/SNqWPtcXk5w

Not really. Lets break down the quests in Skyrim and the ones in Cyberpunk.

Main quests: Your player character's story. You continue one step at a time. Could rush it without doing anything else if you want. The only difference is that the main quest in Skyrim is a bit more straight forward while in Cyberpunk you have a choice which main quest to tackle first (eventually you do all of them).

Side quests: Your standard quest chains where you complete one to unlock the next. For Skyrim these are the faction quests, from the Dark Brotherhood to the Civil War. In Cyberpunk they are a bit less obvious. The main ones concentrate around your 3 main love interests which are sort of replacement for companions (like in Witcher you can only play with your main character). Perhaps the only difference is that Skyrim's are a bit longer but then again I don't think I've completed every chain in Cyberpunk to give a proper opinion.

Tasks/gigs: These are one-offs. You go into a Skyrim settlement and do a task for a reward. In Cyberpunk you go to a part of the city and complete a gig. Nothing special, sometimes there is a choice in the end or a different way to accomplish the goal. Once done they are over.

Activities: Basically the radiant quests in Skyrim and the blue icons in Cyberpunk. You go somewhere, you kill enemies and loot stuff, the end. No lore, no real reason other than the loot.

As you can see the quest system in both games is literally the same. You can do anything in any order but you can only get access to certain main/side quests if you've progressed enough which is valid for both games.

To say they are different genres is stupid, sorry to say