• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Cyberpunk quest director Pawel Sasko explains why there are no police chases

VulcanRaven

Member
Yeah basically. Can you think of any other open world crime games where that happens that aren't GTA clones?
Mafia 1 and 2. They are open world crime games but I'm not sure if I would call them GTA clones. Also the first one was being developed at the same time with GTA 3.
 

Patashnic

Member
He brings up the upcoming Sonic open world game and Elden Ring as open world games that won’t have police chases. He cites GTA and Watch Dogs as two of the only games he can think of that have that system.

 

EDMIX

Member
You mean every open world game needs to copy GTA? Since when has that been a rule?

Well.... yes but they should copy it not because GTA is the best or something but because that is simply reality of what happens when you break the law...

It would be like saying something stupid like "so you mean every game with a shotgun needs to copy The Last of Us 2 + Red Dead Redemption 2 and have people's heads blown clean off their shoulders? Since when has that been a rule?" Sense reality because that is what the fuck happened with a shotgun when you shoot someone lol

It is saying the thing that we're talkin about exist in reality there for it makes sense to be inside of a game not because one particular game said so we're not but because that is the thing that occurs in reality.

So Grand Theft Auto did not invent law enforcement chasing people in vehicles, they simply perfected the concept and I believe by default anyone making an open world game with crime needs to look at that because even arguing against this concept is hurting your own product because why the fuck would you be going against the number one developer who does this concept when the thing they're doing occurs in real life like actual helicopters chasing the criminals to tell the cops where they're going? So what you're saying is don't do that in the video game because Grand Theft Auto did it? So make your game more unrealistic because another better team is doing it better?


Wow bud.

So I need you to escape from your mind that this has anything to do with copying GTA this has more to do with copying reality and if Grand Theft Auto at the time is doing that the best that needs to be who they are mimicking. I mean for god sakes you literally fucking have a developer giving you a blueprint and Paving the way for common-sense design and you decide to ignore it and now cyberpunk 2077 or just naming a game 2077 afterwards has become synonymous with bad design.

Enemies also shoot at you in Grand Theft Auto are you telling me the next cyberpunkgame needs to ignore that because I mean damn they don't want to Copy Grand Theft Auto right? =)
 

Guilty_AI

Member
When you got a series that consistently gets 90s and this game got 50-60 on Xbox One and PS4, you're telling me these games are even-steven? Or 2077 is even better than GTA?
Why should it mean anything? According to metacritic, Cyberpunk 2077 is better than GTA trilogy definitive edition despite these games working almost exactly as the older ones. CP2077 PC is also apparently "better" than Fallout New Vegas. These numbers don't mean shit.
 
Last edited:

StreetsofBeige

Gold Member
Why should it mean anything? According to metacritic, Cyberpunk 2077 is better than GTA trilogy definitive edition despite these games working almost exactly as the older ones. CP2077 PC is also apparently "better" than Fallout New Vegas. These numbers don't mean shit.
Youre comparing 2077 to the GTA Trilogy pack made by that small studio Groove Street Games? GTA Trilogy was grilled for being a crap remaster.

And besides, 2077 MC scores for last gen systems isnt any better than GTA Trilogy. It's the 2077 PC version that got the good score of 86.

Not sure why you are defending 2077 like your life depends on it.
 

Mozzarella

Member
He brings up the upcoming Sonic open world game and Elden Ring as open world games that won’t have police chases. He cites GTA and Watch Dogs as two of the only games he can think of that have that system.

It's weird how game developers barely know or play games, it seems gamers know better lol.
To be fair to this guy, he is quest director, so that means he writes quests or design them and has a team he is responsible on, and to be fair to him again, quests are CDPR main strength, so this guy in particular is great at his job. He tries to answer questions not in his field, so that would be his fault, his answers also are pretty stupid and facepalm worthy. I think he is amateur and he got baited, or maybe he is simply lying to cover up for the company and his fellow devs.
 
Last edited:

SF Kosmo

...please disperse...
I do get what he's saying, like Cyberpunk is not a vehicular-focused game at all, it's trying to be open-world Deus Ex, where GTA is actually more primarily a driving game with some mediocre shooter shit thrown in.

Now, of course, it's also obvious that Cyberpunk can't really handle chase missions, because the driving AI can't do it without a lot of smoke and mirrors. There are the race missions and one or two chases but the cars teleport around behind your back and it's a joke.

But I don't think there's inherently a NEED to have a big vehicular-action component to the game. It's okay for cars to just be a way to get around.
 

StreetsofBeige

Gold Member
It's weird how game developers barely know or play games, it seems gamers know better lol.
To be fair to this guy, he is quest director, so that means he writes quests or design them and has a team he is responsible on, and to be fair to him again, quests are CDPR main strength, so this guy in particular is great at his job. He tries to answer questions not in his field, so that would be his fault, his answers also are pretty stupid and facepalm worthy. I think he is amateur and he got baited, or maybe he is simply lying to cover up for the company and his fellow devs.
That's like a lot of companies. The creation, selling and shipping of products can have absolutely nothing to do with the people at the company doing it. Probably the people who know the most about the product isnt even the office staff. Its the R&D team in a lab making it and testing it. And even for them, they are using it more in a performance test way than a real life way. The marketing team has the info about the product based on the R&D team. THey just regurgitate what R&D tells them and reworks it all into marketable jargon and fancy packaging. Then the finance team does numbers. Sales team sells it. Warehouse crew ships it.

Aside from R&D, nobody has used the products once. At best some free pre-launch samples were given out and some people used them. Most of us take those samples and give them away or toss them in the garbage.
 
Last edited:

Guilty_AI

Member
Youre comparing 2077 to the GTA Trilogy pack made by that small studio Groove Street Games? GTA Trilogy was grilled for being a crap remaster.

And besides, 2077 MC scores for last gen systems isnt any better than GTA Trilogy. It's the 2077 PC version that got the good score of 86.

Not sure why you are defending 2077 like your life depends on it.
I'm not defending cyberpunk as much as i'm criticizing people's double standards. Cyberpunk 2077 has plenty of flaws, but the comparisons people keep drawing with GTA is nothing short of disingenuous, by focusing on the aspects GTA does better (often meaningless things) while also completely ignoring its abhorrent flaws, things that CP manages to do so so much better.

Not to mention how people automatically put on rose-tinted glasses when comparing with The Witcher 3, despite the fact The Witcher 3 has the exact same flaws as cyberpunk, even more actually.
 
Last edited:

Mozzarella

Member
I'm not defending cyberpunk as much as i'm criticizing people's double standards. Cyberpunk 2077 has plenty of flaws, but the comparisons people keep drawing with GTA is nothing short of disingenuous, by focusing on the aspects GTA does better (often meaningless things even) while also completely ignoring its abhorrent flaws that CP manages to do so so much better.

Not to mention how people automatically put on rose-tinted glasses when comparing with Witcher 3, despite the fact Witcher 3 has the exact same flaws as cyberpunk, if not more.
Agree with the first part, but the second should be obvious.
Witcher 3 hype was way lesser than Cyberpunk hype.
Witcher 3 promises are mostly fullfilled, Cyberpunk promises are not.
Witcher 3 handles choice and consequences better.
Witcher 3 combat is better.
Witcher 3 is less buggy
Witcher 3 has (imo) better story, characters and quests.
Witcher 3 fixed most of its launch bugs within 2 months.
In 1 year later after its release Witcher 3 managed to fix most of the bugs, release 16 free dlc, 2 big expansions that are some of the best ever made. Cyberpunk after its 1 year release managed to fix "some" of the many bugs and release absolutely nothing except for 1 jacket (which looks terrible btw) free dlc and empty promises and pat on the back from some devs like Patrick.
Witcher 3 has more heart, more culture and more memorable details.
Witcher 3 was made with lower budget.
When they made Witcher 3, CDPR were champion of the underdog companies, rivaling Bethesda, Konami and many others on the same year, at that time they were less corpo and more for the gamers.
Witcher 3 design philosophy has its flaws sure but it fits well within its time (2015) and it fits well with most of the competition. Compared to that Cyberpunk doesnt fit well within its time (2020 aka next gen) and looks bad compared to its competition.
One of the many of CDPR mistakes was applying Witcher 3 design to Cyberpunk, what worked for Witcher 3 in 2015 has changed and cannot work on Cyberpunk in 2020 with different setting and promises, hence why many of those designs appear to have failed, which they did, but that doesnt mean Witcher 3 designs themselves were bad, its that you took one concept and applied it to another product without knowing that it doesnt really fit well there.

I mean its obvious how can someone prefer one over the other.
 
Last edited:

Guilty_AI

Member
Agree with the first part, but the second should be obvious.
Witcher 3 hype was way lesser than Cyberpunk hype.
Witcher 3 promises are mostly fullfilled, Cyberpunk promises are not.
Witcher 3 handles choice and consequences better.
Witcher 3 combat is better.
Witcher 3 is less buggy
Witcher 3 has (imo) better story, characters and quests.
Witcher 3 fixed most of its launch bugs within 2 months.
In 1 year later after its release Witcher 3 managed to fix most of the bugs, release 16 free dlc, 2 big expansions that are some of the best ever made. Cyberpunk after its 1 year release managed to fix "some" of the many bugs and release absolutely nothing except for 1 jacket (which looks terrible btw) free dlc and empty promises and pat on the back from some devs like Patrick.
Witcher 3 has more heart, more culture and more memorable details.
Witcher 3 was made with lower budget.
When they made Witcher 3, CDPR were champion of the underdog companies, rivaling Bethesda, Konami and many others on the same year, at that time they were less corpo and more for the gamers.
Witcher 3 design philosophy has its flaws sure but it fits well within its time (2015) and it fits well with most of the competition. Compared to that Cyberpunk doesnt fit well within its time (2020 aka next gen) and looks bad compared to its competition.
One of the many of CDPR mistakes was applying Witcher 3 design to Cyberpunk, what worked for Witcher 3 in 2015 has changed and cannot work on Cyberpunk in 2020 with different setting and promises, hence why many of those designs appear to have failed, which they did, but that doesnt mean Witcher 3 designs themselves were bad, its that you took one concept and applied it to another product without knowing that it doesnt really fit well there.

I mean its obvious how can someone prefer one over the other.
I agree with the hype, but the combat and choices?
The vast majority of items are useless and you can get through all encounters with just attacks and side-steps, even at the highest difficulty. Not to mention a whole bunch of nonsensical systems like oil or food.

Choices too. The vast majority of choices did nothing, and the ones that did for the most part only affected the game locally. The game has three actual endings that are affected by whooping total of 2 actions (how "good" you were to Ciri and whether you reported finding her to Emhyr). Everything else you choose throught the game does nothing aside from post-ending slide-show saying "this happened". Cyberpunk choices work similarly.

And no, WItcher 3s design philosophy was already behind in 2015. If anything Cyberpunk improved on that aspect by giving actual freedom for players to complete quests however they see fit, doing it better than other similar AAA games actually. Its mission design is even comparable with Deus Ex.

About the story, characters or "having heart", thats too much subjective. I personally like cyberpunk story and characters much better than The Witcher 3.

I think the reception of cyberpunk was worse than Witcher 3 for 3 reasons:
-Hype was too big for cyberpunk, while witcher 3 kinda came from the shadows.
-The general public just prefer medieval settings more than cyberpunk settings, so they scrutinize CP2077 more. Not to mention it also inspires people to draw comparisons with GTA more than other like-minded RPGs like Deus Ex.
-Social media allowed for bugs, glicthes or broken stuff to go viral easier. Most of the people attacking CP always use the stuff that appeared on these videos as "criticism".
 
Last edited:

20cent

Member
Ignorance is bliss in my case, I guess.

I was expecting an open-world Deus Ex, this is exactly what I think I had, and quite better too.

If it was shit, then I guess that Deus Ex games are too.

I actively avoid games (or movies) trailers and hype threads or marketing campaigns... I don't miss what I've been promised (was it?) and I enjoyed what I had.
 
It's no wonder the game is the way it is (lacking important systems like police chases as we as other side activities) when the game's DIRECTOR makes lame excuses like this!
 

Mozzarella

Member
I agree with the hype, but the combat and choices?
The vast majority of items are useless and you can get through all encounters with just attacks and side-steps, even at the highest difficulty. Not to mention a whole bunch of nonsensical systems like oil or food.

Choices too. The vast majority of choices did nothing, and the ones that did for the most part only affected the game locally. The game has three actual endings that are affected by whooping total of 2 actions (how "good" you were to Ciri and whether you reported finding her to Emhyr). Everything else you choose throught the game does nothing aside from post-ending slide-show saying "this happened". Cyberpunk works very much like this too.

And no, WItcher 3s design philosophy was already behind in 2015. If anything Cyberpunk improved on that aspect by giving actual freedom for players to complete quests however they see fit, doing it better than other similar AAA games. Its mission design is even comparable with Deus Ex.

About the story, characters or "having heart", thats too much subjective. I personally like cyberpunk story and characters much better than The Witcher 3
Combat wise Cyberpunk has better gunplay than the swordplay in Witcher but that is where it ends, the tools you use in Cyberpunk are boring, for example you can tackle an enemy in a stealth way, which basically amount to takedown or killing with a silencer, its more shallow than Skyrim stealth. The other way you can tackle the enemy is via hacking, which is simply go to hacking menu with TAB, choose the hack, and bam.. you are done. It does have abelites but its a boring tool for me. I mean i had some fun with it but thats about it. Compared to Witcher the tools are 5 signs where you can upgrade 1 form further, and you can use different bombs with different effects and a crossbow, and potions and decoctions that give certain buffs. It's basic but i it was more interesting than simply clicking on a menu or one same stealthy method. Crafting and enchanting wise both have it and its not really amazing or anything but i found the witcher to be more believable in that regard when it comes to materials. Anyway thats not combat. Going back to combat, Cyberpunk does offer more guns and weapons to use, due to the nature of the game, i did say the gunplay itself was better than the swordplay and thats because of this fact, more guns and weapons and better animation (it doesnt really have one its just guns) Both have their own strengths but the deal breaker for me was the enemies, you can argue that Cyberpunk may be slightly better at handling YOUR character combat abilities but enemy wise its very dull, the enemies are simply a robotic, human and cyborg, thats about it, for 100 hours you are going to fight those enemies and they have nothing interesting going for them, same attacks and same a.i. Witcher has a lot of different enemies that are different from each other, which keeps thing more engaging over the many hours you play, it has a lot of different bosses too. You can finish each encounter with quen-dodge-attack but thats not the point at all, you can also use the same gun in cyberpunk for 100 hours.

As for Choices they were better implemented, for example Keira Metz encounter is a main quest, which is further going becomes side quest, this simple side quest has 3 endings, on one decision you can take here can change things forward, depending on this choice another certain character may live or die, another side quest can change the ending of the political conflict within the area, you can mess up romance by doing contradictions in your choice, a choice you can do in the tutorial areas, you come back and you notice change, both to the open world and to the character itself, i can give plenty of examples but there's no need, the game handles choice and consequence better, you make choice and sometimes the consequence will appear later, which will impact another choice, another character and another quest. Cyberpunk doenst have that sort of thing except for 2 missions, one is the Maelstrom gang, and the other is Takemura. It does have choices but not as much as Witcher nor as good. If you think most Witcher 3 choices did nothing you need to refresh your memory and check them out, they do change stuff and they are packed with hidden details, check Letalis, hundreds of videos with hidden details.

I dont really think it was behind, in 2015 it was the open world trend, most games went open world, that approach was fine at its time hence why people didnt complain about it, its true Cyberpunk gives you more freedom, you are restricted to play as Geralt in Witcher, due to the nature of the previous game, one can simply make an excuse for the type of fighting you are limited too, its not to say that this makes the point positive but it does have an emergency exist, whereas in Cyberpunk and based on the promises and the trails one cannot use that emergency exist at all.
At its time, that was the standard open world structure, not the revolutionary, they didnt revolutionize the open world design, what they did do is make an open world game with writing quality that rivals linear games, and good side quests. The world itself has rich worldbuilding and feels believable, thats where the praise come from, that game never claimed it will be next gen open world adventure, never claimed to be sandbox and never claim that you play anything but the Witcher himself. They did some downgrade graphically though but thats not important, since it was hardware limitations.

That's subjective indeed, but i feel Witcher writing is better, the dialogue for example flows more natural and feels more believable than Cyberpunk which at many times of its screen time comes off as tryhard and edgy, with Johnny Silverhand being one of those highlights, they have many same people writing them so both can feel believable at certain times and have their share of good engaging dialogue.
Hell even the way they present a short story is far better in Witcher to me, its more engaging to go to the notice board in a village, read about a problem, take the contract and go to the guy himself, have a cutscene with him, he tells you the problem, reads like a good story and you do investigation for a simple fetch quest which feels more written with context than any fetch quests in the industry, its way more engaging, you read papers with stories as well, so its all there, the environmental and the cinematic storytelling, in Cyberpunk you get a lame phone call near the area, annoying as hell, same picture at the top right, annoying face talking, take the quest, do your thing, off the cyborg, read the shard, fuck that..no its not engaging nor its well made.
Even minigames, Gwent, its so fun, has a questline around it, lore points, well implemented in the world, it feels like it could exist, hell...it was successful on its own, they made a game out of it. One of the best minigames ever imo. Good enough depth for a minigame, good ost, added more depth in the expansion.

I can still find many thing better in Witcher, i may be biased but im pretty confident in my take, since i studied those game well, play them enough to know about them. Character wise Witcher cast is bigger and better, the DLC add that depth, better romance partner imo, Panam is good character though, Takemura is another one, those 2 are on par with Witcher characters, but the rest? not really. Jackie is underdeveloped. Johnny i really dislike, feels forced and edgy af. The villain is...well we didnt see him lol. At least Eredin is low budget Sauron. And Gaunter is among the best villains, Detlaff is decent one too. Should i go more? Bloody Baron? there's more.
Quest is a bit different, the mission design itself, yea Cyberpunk has more freedom and props to them for that, one aspect is really better, but the writing itself imo is not as good as Witcher, at all, not as good. Choices are not as good, they barely impact stuff. I would say variety and quantity is also lower, Witcher has a lot of varied quests, tackle many things, from comedy to parody to serial killer murder mystery to theatre act to gwent tournaments to adventure to battle arenas to romance to epic to moral to social to political ones too much variety, and a lot more quests to do as well.

Dont take this the wrong way though, im not trying to convince you of my opinion, i want you here to understand that its very obvious how can someone prefer Witcher over Cyberpunk, it should be clear, i am one of those examples and i tried to give you explanation here, of why i believe that they have quite the gap between them. Nevertheless all things considered, im glad you prefer the other over it, i appreciate the hot take, and i like it when people like different things.
 
I agree with the hype, but the combat and choices?
The vast majority of items are useless and you can get through all encounters with just attacks and side-steps, even at the highest difficulty. Not to mention a whole bunch of nonsensical systems like oil or food.

Choices too. The vast majority of choices did nothing, and the ones that did for the most part only affected the game locally. The game has three actual endings that are affected by whooping total of 2 actions (how "good" you were to Ciri and whether you reported finding her to Emhyr). Everything else you choose throught the game does nothing aside from post-ending slide-show saying "this happened". Cyberpunk choices work similarly.

And no, WItcher 3s design philosophy was already behind in 2015. If anything Cyberpunk improved on that aspect by giving actual freedom for players to complete quests however they see fit, doing it better than other similar AAA games actually. Its mission design is even comparable with Deus Ex.

About the story, characters or "having heart", thats too much subjective. I personally like cyberpunk story and characters much better than The Witcher 3.

I think the reception of cyberpunk was worse than Witcher 3 for 3 reasons:
-Hype was too big for cyberpunk, while witcher 3 kinda came from the shadows.
-The general public just prefer medieval settings more than cyberpunk settings, so they scrutinize CP2077 more. Not to mention it also inspires people to draw comparisons with GTA more than other like-minded RPGs like Deus Ex.
-Social media allowed for bugs, glicthes or broken stuff to go viral easier. Most of the people attacking CP always use the stuff that appeared on these videos as "criticism".
Disagree with points 1 and 3. Witcher 3 was extremely hyped leading up to its release as it blew people away in its e3 2014 demo (which was downgraded by the time it released). Witcher 3 in 2015 was probably the most hyped game to come out that year.

As far as people just "using stuff that appeared in other youtubers videos to attack cd project with". While it's true that youtube puts the bugs under a microscope and makes it easier for people to repeat what they've seen, that's a bit of a generalization and doesn't mean that people didn't experience their own set of issues. All evidence points towards the game being in a much worse state than every game out there. Sony even removed the game from their own store.

If they hadn't made so many promises and claims the backlash wouldn't have been so severe. This was a poorly managed game and they threw their ethics aside by releasing it unfinished and in hiding from people the state of the last gen version (while making comments like "it runs surprisingly well"). Seems they havnt learned much either as the director is still making excuses and the promised next gen update still has no release in sight
 

Mozzarella

Member
Disagree with points 1 and 3. Witcher 3 was extremely hyped leading up to its release as it blew people away in its e3 2014 demo (which was downgraded by the time it released). Witcher 3 in 2015 was probably the most hyped game to come out that year.
It wasnt really that hyped, not any more hyped than The Last of Us, Uncharted 4, Red Dead Redemption 2 or even God of War.
Now Cyberpunk? thats GTA V levels of hype.
Witcher 3 sales did better over the course of its years, because of its good word of mouth hence why it didnt rely on initial hype as much as Cyberpunk did which blows all its load early in the launch dates. Also Fallout 4 was more hyped than Witcher 3 in 2015, oh and Metal Gear Solid V as well, but since they didnt deliver as much, people remembered Witcher 3 and it swept the awards and took over the gaming community like a storm.
 
Last edited:

Guilty_AI

Member
Did you completely misread what I posted?
I read well, and its wrong.

*Ghost town -> you need to pay 15000 to rogue, you can do that upfront if you have the money, if you don't you can take a quest you're given by a guy outside or make the money yourself through other means. In the same mission, you can choose to go along with Panam's revenge, possibly unlocking her entire questline which can have huge consequences towards the ending of the game, or ignore her, perfectly possible if you have someone else in mind to romance or you're unaware of the consequences.

*Mission to save Saul during Panams questline -> If you don't alert the enemies you'll go out quietly through a backdoor in a van, if you alert the enemies there'll be a car chase when you make your escape.

*Scouting an industrial park with takemura -> During recognizance you'll find multiple ways to enter the building, such as sneaking into loading trucks, hidden passageways, getting ahold of weakness of a certain guard (if you have corpo lifepath), etc.

*Random side-quest with some guys who stole a chemical component -> They're in a Motel, you can either sneak in or pay for a night on the reception. Further in there are multiple ways you can find their hideout like looking at files on a PC, investigating other rooms, going from door to door, etc. Their room can also be invaded either through the front if you have enough physical strenght or through a back door if you explore around some. Not to mention the option of just blasting in shooting through the front door of the motel.

Those are just stuff i remember off the top of my head, and i'm not even half done with the game yet.

Even simple brawling missions can have difference consequences. In one of them, you can either have a normal fight or, if you have enough of body stats, you can raise the bet and make the guy bet a legendary sniper rifle, in which case he'll get angry if he loses and call his friends to kill you.
In fact, reading the wiki right now i found out even if you don't bet his rifle, you can provoke him afterwards to make them attack you and try to kill you, in which case you can kill them and take his sniper anyway. Not to mention unconvetional "solutions" like just shooting them outright or running away.
 
Last edited:

Mozzarella

Member
I read well, and its wrong.

*Ghost town -> you need to pay 15000 to rogue, you can do that upfront if you have the money, if you don't you can take a quest you're given by a guy outside or make the money yourself through other means. In the same mission, you can choose to go along with Panam's revenge, possibly unlocking her entire questline which can have huge consequences towards the ending of the game, or ignore her, perfectly possible if you have someone else in mind to romance or you're unaware of the consequences.

*Mission to save Saul during Panams questline -> If you don't alert the enemies you'll go out quietly through a backdoor in a van, if you alert the enemies there'll be a car chase when you make your escape.

*Scouting an industrial park with takemura -> During recognizance you'll find multiple ways to enter the building, such as sneaking into loading trucks, hidden passageways, getting ahold of weakness of a certain guard (if you have corpo lifepath), etc.

*Random side-quest with some guys who stole a chemical component -> They're in a Motel, you can either sneak in or pay for a night on the reception. Further in there are multiple ways you can find their hideout like looking at files on a PC, investigating other rooms, going from door to door, etc. Their room can also be invaded either through the front if you have enough physical strenght or through a back door if you explore around some. Not to mention the option of just blasting in shooting through the front door of the motel.

Those are just stuff i remember off the top of my head, and i'm not even half done with the game yet.

Even simple brawling missions can have difference consequences. In one of them, you can either have a normal fight or, if you have enough of body stats, you can raise the bet and make the guy bet a legendary sniper rifle, in which case he'll get angry if he loses and call his friends to kill you.
In fact, reading the wiki right now i found out even if you don't bet his rifle, you can provoke him afterwards to make them attack you and try to kill you, in which case you can kill them and take his sniper anyway. Not to mention unconvetional "solutions" like just shooting them outright or running away.
While reading this post i actually remembered one more choice that i would consider adding to the post I made above, one is Jackie after the heist, which can open another quest. Which is another example of the quests i suggested where the better implemented ones.
Ofcourse the side quests themselves do have choices, you have the A.I Delamain quest, its a choice at the end, you also have Sinnerman part where some people can miss on its stuff, and probably things that change the ending like having certain affinity with Johnny to gets his secret ending or doing Panam questline. And i dont know if you like me forgot to save Takemura which is a choice that has later consequences and is well implemented in subtle way (similar to Witcher 3 choices)
 
Last edited:
Combat wise Cyberpunk has better gunplay than the swordplay in Witcher but that is where it ends, the tools you use in Cyberpunk are boring, for example you can tackle an enemy in a stealth way, which basically amount to takedown or killing with a silencer, its more shallow than Skyrim stealth. The other way you can tackle the enemy is via hacking, which is simply go to hacking menu with TAB, choose the hack, and bam.. you are done. It does have abelites but its a boring tool for me. I mean i had some fun with it but thats about it. Compared to Witcher the tools are 5 signs where you can upgrade 1 form further, and you can use different bombs with different effects and a crossbow, and potions and decoctions that give certain buffs. It's basic but i it was more interesting than simply clicking on a menu or one same stealthy method. Crafting and enchanting wise both have it and its not really amazing or anything but i found the witcher to be more believable in that regard when it comes to materials. Anyway thats not combat. Going back to combat, Cyberpunk does offer more guns and weapons to use, due to the nature of the game, i did say the gunplay itself was better than the swordplay and thats because of this fact, more guns and weapons and better animation (it doesnt really have one its just guns) Both have their own strengths but the deal breaker for me was the enemies, you can argue that Cyberpunk may be slightly better at handling YOUR character combat abilities but enemy wise its very dull, the enemies are simply a robotic, human and cyborg, thats about it, for 100 hours you are going to fight those enemies and they have nothing interesting going for them, same attacks and same a.i. Witcher has a lot of different enemies that are different from each other, which keeps thing more engaging over the many hours you play, it has a lot of different bosses too. You can finish each encounter with quen-dodge-attack but thats not the point at all, you can also use the same gun in cyberpunk for 100 hours.

As for Choices they were better implemented, for example Keira Metz encounter is a main quest, which is further going becomes side quest, this simple side quest has 3 endings, on one decision you can take here can change things forward, depending on this choice another certain character may live or die, another side quest can change the ending of the political conflict within the area, you can mess up romance by doing contradictions in your choice, a choice you can do in the tutorial areas, you come back and you notice change, both to the open world and to the character itself, i can give plenty of examples but there's no need, the game handles choice and consequence better, you make choice and sometimes the consequence will appear later, which will impact another choice, another character and another quest. Cyberpunk doenst have that sort of thing except for 2 missions, one is the Maelstrom gang, and the other is Takemura. It does have choices but not as much as Witcher nor as good. If you think most Witcher 3 choices did nothing you need to refresh your memory and check them out, they do change stuff and they are packed with hidden details, check Letalis, hundreds of videos with hidden details.

I dont really think it was behind, in 2015 it was the open world trend, most games went open world, that approach was fine at its time hence why people didnt complain about it, its true Cyberpunk gives you more freedom, you are restricted to play as Geralt in Witcher, due to the nature of the previous game, one can simply make an excuse for the type of fighting you are limited too, its not to say that this makes the point positive but it does have an emergency exist, whereas in Cyberpunk and based on the promises and the trails one cannot use that emergency exist at all.
At its time, that was the standard open world structure, not the revolutionary, they didnt revolutionize the open world design, what they did do is make an open world game with writing quality that rivals linear games, and good side quests. The world itself has rich worldbuilding and feels believable, thats where the praise come from, that game never claimed it will be next gen open world adventure, never claimed to be sandbox and never claim that you play anything but the Witcher himself. They did some downgrade graphically though but thats not important, since it was hardware limitations.

That's subjective indeed, but i feel Witcher writing is better, the dialogue for example flows more natural and feels more believable than Cyberpunk which at many times of its screen time comes off as tryhard and edgy, with Johnny Silverhand being one of those highlights, they have many same people writing them so both can feel believable at certain times and have their share of good engaging dialogue.
Hell even the way they present a short story is far better in Witcher to me, its more engaging to go to the notice board in a village, read about a problem, take the contract and go to the guy himself, have a cutscene with him, he tells you the problem, reads like a good story and you do investigation for a simple fetch quest which feels more written with context than any fetch quests in the industry, its way more engaging, you read papers with stories as well, so its all there, the environmental and the cinematic storytelling, in Cyberpunk you get a lame phone call near the area, annoying as hell, same picture at the top right, annoying face talking, take the quest, do your thing, off the cyborg, read the shard, fuck that..no its not engaging nor its well made.
Even minigames, Gwent, its so fun, has a questline around it, lore points, well implemented in the world, it feels like it could exist, hell...it was successful on its own, they made a game out of it. One of the best minigames ever imo. Good enough depth for a minigame, good ost, added more depth in the expansion.

I can still find many thing better in Witcher, i may be biased but im pretty confident in my take, since i studied those game well, play them enough to know about them. Character wise Witcher cast is bigger and better, the DLC add that depth, better romance partner imo, Panam is good character though, Takemura is another one, those 2 are on par with Witcher characters, but the rest? not really. Jackie is underdeveloped. Johnny i really dislike, feels forced and edgy af. The villain is...well we didnt see him lol. At least Eredin is low budget Sauron. And Gaunter is among the best villains, Detlaff is decent one too. Should i go more? Bloody Baron? there's more.
Quest is a bit different, the mission design itself, yea Cyberpunk has more freedom and props to them for that, one aspect is really better, but the writing itself imo is not as good as Witcher, at all, not as good. Choices are not as good, they barely impact stuff. I would say variety and quantity is also lower, Witcher has a lot of varied quests, tackle many things, from comedy to parody to serial killer murder mystery to theatre act to gwent tournaments to adventure to battle arenas to romance to epic to moral to social to political ones too much variety, and a lot more quests to do as well.

Dont take this the wrong way though, im not trying to convince you of my opinion, i want you here to understand that its very obvious how can someone prefer Witcher over Cyberpunk, it should be clear, i am one of those examples and i tried to give you explanation here, of why i believe that they have quite the gap between them. Nevertheless all things considered, im glad you prefer the other over it, i appreciate the hot take, and i like it when people like different things.
You summed it up right there and I agree. Seeing both games strengths broken down like that and it's clear to me, Witcher 3 is better in almost every way. It's got better quests, more variety of everything, more content etc. It flows better as an open world. It feels fully fleshed out whereas Cyberpunk feels like it's lacking in side content. Those systems, LIKE POLICE CHASES, and other seemingly minor activities found in games like GTA and even Watch Dogs 1 and 2 (Legion was lacking in) are the things an open world needs to feel alive and immersive. Cyberpunk systems felt paper thin. It needed more systems, like a car jacking mini game where you would have to unlock and steal any car and then you could drive it to a pick spot or sell on the black market. Something like that. Gta V is the king of these kinda things. Hunting, fishing, car jacking, racing, tennis court etc etc

Cyberpunk also didn't make the loot system and crafting feel fun to do whereas Witcher gave us lots of recipes to go find ingredients for which would then allow us to craft items that felt added significantly to gameplay. Cyberpunks crafting wasn't very satisfying. I havnt played through the whole game so forgive me if some of these systems open up later into the game.
 
It wasnt really that hyped, not any more hyped than The Last of Us, Uncharted 4, Red Dead Redemption 2 or even God of War.
Now Cyberpunk? thats GTA V levels of hype.
Witcher 3 sales did better over the course of its years, because of its good word of mouth hence why it didnt rely on initial hype as much as Cyberpunk did which blows all its load early in the launch dates. Also Fallout 4 was more hyped than Witcher 3 in 2015, oh and Metal Gear Solid V as well, but since they didnt deliver as much, people remembered Witcher 3 and it swept the awards and took over the gaming community like a storm.
You just listed 4 of the most hyped games of the last generation and are saying Witcher 3 wasn't hyped because it was similar to those games. Last of Us 2, rdr2, uncharted 4, and God of War, what? Fallout 4 was a hyped game but I'd argue not nearly as much as Witcher 3, since they only revealed Fallout 4 6 months before the game came out. There wasn't time for it to generate Witcher 3's hype. Witcher 3 blew everyone away initially and then was delayed multiple times, very long delays always add to the anticipation.

Just because Cyberpunk and GTAV were more hyped doesn't mean Witcher 3 wasn't at an extremely high level. Pretty sure Witcher sold a lot at launch too.
 
I should have added that I agree with 90%
Agree with the first part, but the second should be obvious.
Witcher 3 hype was way lesser than Cyberpunk hype.
Witcher 3 promises are mostly fullfilled, Cyberpunk promises are not.
Witcher 3 handles choice and consequences better.
Witcher 3 combat is better.
Witcher 3 is less buggy
Witcher 3 has (imo) better story, characters and quests.
Witcher 3 fixed most of its launch bugs within 2 months.
In 1 year later after its release Witcher 3 managed to fix most of the bugs, release 16 free dlc, 2 big expansions that are some of the best ever made. Cyberpunk after its 1 year release managed to fix "some" of the many bugs and release absolutely nothing except for 1 jacket (which looks terrible btw) free dlc and empty promises and pat on the back from some devs like Patrick.
Witcher 3 has more heart, more culture and more memorable details.
Witcher 3 was made with lower budget.
When they made Witcher 3, CDPR were champion of the underdog companies, rivaling Bethesda, Konami and many others on the same year, at that time they were less corpo and more for the gamers.
Witcher 3 design philosophy has its flaws sure but it fits well within its time (2015) and it fits well with most of the competition. Compared to that Cyberpunk doesnt fit well within its time (2020 aka next gen) and looks bad compared to its competition.
One of the many of CDPR mistakes was applying Witcher 3 design to Cyberpunk, what worked for Witcher 3 in 2015 has changed and cannot work on Cyberpunk in 2020 with different setting and promises, hence why many of those designs appear to have failed, which they did, but that doesnt mean Witcher 3 designs themselves were bad, its that you took one concept and applied it to another product without knowing that it doesnt really fit well there.

I mean its obvious how can someone prefer one over the other.
I should've said that I agree with 95% of your points
 

Dorohedoro

Member
Breath of the wild also has a better open world and was developed for the Wii u at the time the Witcher 3 was being developed. Fallout 4 also has a better open world and was released the same year.

Cdpr is amazing at some things and mediocre at others like every developer out there, not shaming then, just don't understand why they were so overrated. Maybe because they had a fantastic pr department.
I don't agree about Fallout 4 even though I thought it was a pretty good game. Bethesda has been making huge open world games for ages so they were far more experienced. TW3 was stellar as CDPR's first attempt at a major open world title. Shame things went tits up in their next game, some of it might've been from a lot of TW3 devs leaving. I do agree that the hype over them started getting out of hand even when they were biting off more than they could chew behind the scenes. The overwhelming success of TW3 must've gotten to their heads, Marcin Iwinski probably thought they were up there with Rockstar overnight.
 

TheInfamousKira

Reseterror Resettler
Other games that didn't have police chases:

E.T. for Atari
Tetris
Hopscotch
Solitaire
Heavy Rain
Metroid Prime: Federation Forces
Final Fantasy IX
Russian Roulette
Pussy or Raw Meat?
Life
Triple H
Connect Four
Touch Dic
 

01011001

Member





______________________________________________

btw. what is this 👇 👇 ugly cover art that Driver had in north america? WTF? :sick: 🤮



look at the beautiful PAL cover!





and WTF is this hybrid shit for Driver 2?


meanwhile the again, the better PAL cover (although not as good as the first one):
 
Last edited:

Warablo

Member
I could care less about police car chases, that's the least of Cyberpunk's problems. I enjoyed it, just didnt live up to the hype. There is a lot of potential still there untapped. Hopefully I can return one day when they update it, but they sure are taking their sweet time.
 
Last edited:

Tallahassee

Member
The case of cyberpunk is embarrassing, I understand that the marketing team must lie to sell, but this game was a scam like never before seen in the industry and they still have the face to go out and justify or explain why this or that thing It is not in the game. The media and influencers were also exposed for the marketing tools that they are.
yeah not just the marketing, I remember 2 of their devs lying in crowbcat's video. despite all that, they still have an army of apologists especially on steam
 

Mozzarella

Member
You summed it up right there and I agree. Seeing both games strengths broken down like that and it's clear to me, Witcher 3 is better in almost every way. It's got better quests, more variety of everything, more content etc. It flows better as an open world. It feels fully fleshed out whereas Cyberpunk feels like it's lacking in side content. Those systems, LIKE POLICE CHASES, and other seemingly minor activities found in games like GTA and even Watch Dogs 1 and 2 (Legion was lacking in) are the things an open world needs to feel alive and immersive. Cyberpunk systems felt paper thin. It needed more systems, like a car jacking mini game where you would have to unlock and steal any car and then you could drive it to a pick spot or sell on the black market. Something like that. Gta V is the king of these kinda things. Hunting, fishing, car jacking, racing, tennis court etc etc

Cyberpunk also didn't make the loot system and crafting feel fun to do whereas Witcher gave us lots of recipes to go find ingredients for which would then allow us to craft items that felt added significantly to gameplay. Cyberpunks crafting wasn't very satisfying. I havnt played through the whole game so forgive me if some of these systems open up later into the game.
Indeed, while they are not priority to the main game itself, those little things and additions can help as you describe it to enhance immersion and flesh out the world to make it more alive, another example that you forgot is basically they can add a metro system or a flying car system which you cannot use yourself freely (because that can break level design and flow of quests) but rather take it as a trip for fast travel, with the option of skipping the cutscene for sure, this may cost few weeks of work and some money, but it does help to add immersion, as well as improving the traffic A.I.
One person in the stream months ago asked Pawel about the cars and how they look 2d far away, they look lets say not good, and he notices it and said its not looking good and they need to address it, i dont know if he told someone about it.
Another detail is the transmog system which is also not priority since you barely see your character but it does enhance customization.
Immersion and Customization are parts where these little details are fleshed out more to make the game better.
I dont agree with all though, for example you said "Hunting" that would be a chore in this game, i guess you mean to give this as an example. Racing is already there but they have it as side questline which is also fine. Tennis and sport minigames are big no for me, they are boring in this type of game, it doesnt need to be another GTA. I think they can simply add gambling minigames, as the world is advanced and making money should be easier in that setting, or you could simply invent a new minigame.
Personally im not big fan of minigames that i can find as a browser games on the internet, which are things i saw in Yakuza and i didnt bother to play with for few minutes.

I also somewhat disagree with the last part, i think Loot was an issue in Witcher game itself, apart from the diagrams and witcher gear you dont get worthy loot and most of it are just junk for sale, the level scaling on that loot wasnt good either, so that is one aspect that they copied from witcher without realizing it was bad regardless. But as for crafting i agree, while both have basic crafting that amounts to clicking on menus, it does feel realistic in witcher because the material itself makes sense both in context and value.
You just listed 4 of the most hyped games of the last generation and are saying Witcher 3 wasn't hyped because it was similar to those games. Last of Us 2, rdr2, uncharted 4, and God of War, what? Fallout 4 was a hyped game but I'd argue not nearly as much as Witcher 3, since they only revealed Fallout 4 6 months before the game came out. There wasn't time for it to generate Witcher 3's hype. Witcher 3 blew everyone away initially and then was delayed multiple times, very long delays always add to the anticipation.

Just because Cyberpunk and GTAV were more hyped doesn't mean Witcher 3 wasn't at an extremely high level. Pretty sure Witcher sold a lot at launch too.
Those games were more hyped though, all of them, Witcher 3 had some levels of hype by its fanbase which was rather small and few open world games enthusiasts at the time who wanted a new skyrim. But compared to MGS5? Fallout 4? it was less hyped for sure, Fallout 4 had to follow the legendary Fallout series, New Vegas and 3, and Skyrim from Bethesda, which was big expectation and i remember the hype was really huge. MGS5 is the same, konami game from Kojima after MGS4, new game open world with new mechanics people were excited. Bloodborne has some hype but way less than both and less than Witcher too.
The hype grew bigger once Witcher 3 released but that is not what i call hype anymore, since the game is out and people started to love it, it was years and years of praise until it became what it is today. Since both Fallout 4 and MGS5 didnt satisfy their fanbase enough they lost their hype immediately same way Cyberpunk lost it after few months and now people barely hype it up, only talk about it to shit on it.
I should have added that I agree with 90%

I should've said that I agree with 95% of your points
Glad to explain, thanks, i think you could've edited the post (3 in a row) though :messenger_winking_tongue: thats what i usually do.
 

Guilty_AI

Member
I also somewhat disagree with the last part, i think Loot was an issue in Witcher game itself, apart from the diagrams and witcher gear you dont get worthy loot and most of it are just junk for sale, the level scaling on that loot wasnt good either, so that is one aspect that they copied from witcher without realizing it was bad regardless.
I'd say level scaling is one of the worst aspects of both Cyberpunk and The Witcher 3. Not only it doesn't make any sense (like having random forest ghouls more powerful than high vampires), but they can also make the overall experience worse.

As the previous guy said, crafting in cyberpunk ends up being useless because you're constantly getting better loot. However, after installing a gameplay mod that, among other things, removes overall level scaling (both characters and items) i suddenly find myself using crafting abilities a lot more since it ends up being one of the most reliable ways to improve your arsenal.

CDPR just doesn't know how to balance their RPG systems properly, they just throw a whole bunch of stuff and let players do whatever.
 
Last edited:

Guilty_AI

Member
You summed it up right there and I agree. Seeing both games strengths broken down like that and it's clear to me, Witcher 3 is better in almost every way. It's got better quests, more variety of everything, more content etc. It flows better as an open world. It feels fully fleshed out whereas Cyberpunk feels like it's lacking in side content. Those systems, LIKE POLICE CHASES, and other seemingly minor activities found in games like GTA and even Watch Dogs 1 and 2 (Legion was lacking in) are the things an open world needs to feel alive and immersive. Cyberpunk systems felt paper thin. It needed more systems, like a car jacking mini game where you would have to unlock and steal any car and then you could drive it to a pick spot or sell on the black market. Something like that. Gta V is the king of these kinda things. Hunting, fishing, car jacking, racing, tennis court etc etc
I have to disagree. The breadth of content of both The Witcher 3 and Cyberpunk feel very much the same. TW3 quests aren't really any better, cyberpunk ones actually feel more well thought out since they offer a much wider variety of ways to finish them. I also don't see how it has any more variety of content than CP, when both games pretty much only have quests as their content. I mean, what else apart from chasing quest markers can you do in The witcher 3? Its the same as Cyberpunk.

I also have to disagree with the minigame activities. Those are pure bloat, they rarely add anything to these games. Cyberpunk constantly throws you encounters with gang members where you have to fight, which feel a lot more meaningful for the game overall since they help you progress, and are a lot more fun than playing some dart minigame with your fat cousin.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom