Almost as if they spent 163 million dollars on marketing. That's why there's so much astroturfing and constant press releases. They're paying big money to turn the reputation around.
Yep and it worked, I bought the game on release which something out of character for me, but shelved it after a few days. Yeah PC couldn't handle it and it was buggy af but, recently gave it another shot and it's definitely improved, much more immersive and fun
Did the opposite for me. I was so tired of seeing stuff about it back on Reddit that I filtered it out. I think it made me less likely to buy the game due to exhaustion. People just wouldn't shut the fuck up about it and nothing else could get through.
I also ignored the game for a long time until the anime came out on Netflix, then i bought the same game on steam during a sale. Honestly super worth it for $30, (talking original 2077 and not the dlc) so much story side quests and content. Hours of fun and shit that's hilarious haha
Yup, I still haven't played it, but I'll probably get around to it eventually. But the hype and fallout really did deter me from playing it at all. I dislike hype, and the fallout made the issues seem worse than they were.
The game isn’t actually all that more demanding, they just did actual bench testing. I have a 3050ti mobile with 4gb VRAM and I get about 45ish FPS with settings on medium, and dips into like 28. I think my range is 25-72 or something. Some parts of the DLC, like in Dogtown, I do get less FPS, however there are some parts so far that I’m getting the best frames I’ve gotten. Like 60 during a major boss fight, it was crazy. Of course then after it dipped down again but still. It’s absolutely worth it to play, can you totally run it on a 3070
Kinda same for me. I bought it on release and while I could play some, I had to wait a good 6 months to actually play the game to completion due to all the crashes. However, I started a new game recently with the 2.0 patch and picked up the Phantom Liberty DLC and I'm having a lot of fun with it. And I think the DLC is really well done. Say what you will about CDPR, but those folks know how to make good DLC.
What isnt anecdotal evidence is that 2077 was so buggy it was preventing people from playing the game, and the game breaking bugs were well documented.
While starfield has no consistent and unavoidable game breaking issues. As shown by zero documentation of stable game breaking bugs.
Ha, I see you didn't play on previous gen consoles. It was borderline unplayable on Xbox One at release. Terrible frame rate, massive portions of the city disappearing and/or low res, crashes everywhere…
Granted Starfield isn't even playable on Xbox One, but between low FPS and normal Bethesda style bugs, I don't think it's in a worse state than Cyberpunk was on PC/Series.
I don't think it's really a double standard. I was using that as an example of a negative that impacts gameplay in Starfield but doesn't make it completely unplayable like Cyberpunk was. I didn't say "Starfield is perfect, but Cyberpunk sucks".
Personally I think some issues with AI pathing and dodgy procedural generation (Bethesda style bugs) is not quite as bad as the whole world failing to load causing you to fall through the map and die, for example.
I remember when everyone was joking about T posing in cyberpunk, i've seen it happen in cyberpunk just once… and 3 times in starfield.
Much of this feels subjective. If you focused on the main game then cyberpunk was great, but look to hard in the details and the illusion fell flat.
Star field feels much more complete in these details but anything that is not top level hardware gives a worse performance and looks then i had in modded skyrim.
The game simply didn't work on outdated hardware. No one in good faith is denying that.
Bad faith is taking example of the game running on outdated hardware as reprentative of what the game was.
CP77 worked perfectly well on the hardware it that was able to run it.
On the other hand I have friends unable to play starfield because the game crashes regularly. Their computer can run any other recent game like CP77 or BG3 for example.
That is anecdotal evidence. I'm not saying starfield is unplayable. Unlike you are saying CP77 was unplayable at launch, which is wrong. It was unplayable on outdated hardware.
Sure, you can frame it as not working on outdated hardware. I even mentioned that Starfield didn't even release on that generation of consoles.
The problem is the Cyberpunk DID release on that generation of consoles. You buy a copy on console, you expect it at least to function. My anecdotal evidence: it was literally unplayable. O stopped playing and never went back.
Comparing that to PC is more akin bad faith. There's a huge range PC wise and while its unacceptable for a certain combo of hardware to be unable to run the game, expecting outdated hardware to run the game on PC is expected. Are you saying there were no such issues like this for Cyberpunk on PC at launch?
Expecting outdated hardware to run a game is never expected and it has never been. Crysis for example even based its communication on the fact it couldn't run on even 2 years old hardware. Supreme commander was notoriously hard on the hardware. Hardware before the advent of multiplatform had a life expectancy of between 2 and 5 years.
I played the game at release and I finished it before Christmas, so before the January patch. I had no bug whatsoever. The game ran smoothly from start to finish.
I'm a pc gamer. So I know to beware of pc spec for a new game. Sorry you were fooled into thinking the game would work fine on an outdated machine. But cdpr was quite nice with it and the refunds. Which should prove their good faith. My friend couldn't get a refund for starfield.
This sounds like you played from a HDD instead of a SSD. That part of the system requirements is quickly becoming "not a suggestion". I realize most console players don't touch their hardware at all, but what you're describing is exactly the set of problems with running it from an HDD aside from the audio usually being scratchy/choppy in addition to all that on PC as well.
I have an external SSD, but that’s besides the point. The whole point of a console is that it’s a standardised piece of hardware and you can expect games to run on it out of the box.
Why are people disputing the fact that the game barely ran on Xbox One on release? That was what most of the bad PR was about at the time…
Starfield wasn't overhyped unlike Cyberpunk, so it got way less flack and was received much better. It also doesn't crash every couple of minutes for most, so that is a plus.
Cyberpunk didn't crash for most. It worked well at release for most actually. See the steam rating for proof.
Meanwhile some friends can't play starfield because it does crash all the time. And I'm not even talking about its shortcomings as a game.
What I suspect is that the game work on console, and that's the only thing that matters to your online reputation. That was the only true sin of CP77, and the only success of starfield, and that's all the difference.
It was not the only true sin of cyberpunk. I played on release on a 3090 and it was bland, felt rushed, full of bugs, and the city felt hollow with things spawning in and out breaking immersion. It just wasn't a fun game unless you stuck to the rails, and even then it felt half-assed. The intro where I'm rushed into the city and then they just skip over all the character introductions with a cutscene really left a sour taste in my mouth.
They hyped it up to be this living breathing city with ultimate freedom and they simply didn't deliver.
Starfield, however, everyone knew they were using the same old engine, with the same old game design, it was just going to be Skyrim in space. And it was.
It was not the only true sin of cyberpunk. I played on release on a 3090 and it was bland
I don't think I've ever met anyone who thought the Sinnerman quest was 'bland' - and if you thought The Hunt was bland, uh, I'm sorry. I had to go hug my kids.
Maybe I've somehow made it into my 40's without being jaded.
I'm talking about the world on the whole, because unfortunately I got bored and was so disappointed in the offerings that I probably didn't play the missions you mentioned, and dropped it out of my to-play list, as other games have been more engaging.
Well in my opinion you missed out big. I played about… 6-8 months after launch and it's now my 3rd most played game on steam. The world-building is incredible, where you're constantly overhearing things happening around the city that later you actually get to witness. Some of the quests are probably my favourite in any game, ever. Not to mention the combat (especially post 2.0) is way more fun than I was expecting. Using Mantis Blades you feel like a bug from Starship Troopers. I have a screenshot somewhere of three arms and two legs all airborne in my vision as I tore through some unfortunate gangers.
I haven't played the DLC yet, but it's next in my queue.
Did you have the game on a hdd or an ssd? That was a big technical problem of CP77. On an ssd it worked perfectly fine.
Bland, rushed and full of bugs is an exaggeration and very subjective. Starfield is worst on that aspect.
Again, look at steam ratings if you want to see an objective rating of the game since launch. CP77 had 20% of bad review despite the flaming even on media that never talked about a video game before, and that is since the first month of release. It's a bit early for starfield but current evaluation is at 28% of bad reviews.
Starfield has a worst launch than CP77. That is a hard fact.
Again, no it wasn't perfectly fine. Of course, I had it on an M2 drive. No amount of whitewashing can cover up the fact it was broken and unfinished on launch, and that's why there was such a well deserved backlash.
They promised things that simply weren't in the game. There were clear unfinished parts of the world, the story, and the gameplay.
Starfield is Skyrim in space. If you like that formula, great, you got Skyrim in space.
Almost as if they spent 163 million dollars on marketing. That's why there's so much astroturfing and constant press releases. They're paying big money to turn the reputation around.
Yep and it worked, I bought the game on release which something out of character for me, but shelved it after a few days. Yeah PC couldn't handle it and it was buggy af but, recently gave it another shot and it's definitely improved, much more immersive and fun
Did the opposite for me. I was so tired of seeing stuff about it back on Reddit that I filtered it out. I think it made me less likely to buy the game due to exhaustion. People just wouldn't shut the fuck up about it and nothing else could get through.
I also ignored the game for a long time until the anime came out on Netflix, then i bought the same game on steam during a sale. Honestly super worth it for $30, (talking original 2077 and not the dlc) so much story side quests and content. Hours of fun and shit that's hilarious haha
Yup, I still haven't played it, but I'll probably get around to it eventually. But the hype and fallout really did deter me from playing it at all. I dislike hype, and the fallout made the issues seem worse than they were.
I fear we're in the minority.
Yeah, I've heard it's a lot better these days and I'll probably get around to it in the next couple of years (I'm sure you know how backlogs are).
I bought it after the bad news and right before they came with updates as the price was good.
I run it on a 3070 and left out the dlc when i heard: "the game will be more demanding" which was my sign to uninstall and move on.
I enjoyed it for roughly 200h and got a second wind from edge runners where i modded Lucy into my game, all in all i really enjoyed myself.
The game isn’t actually all that more demanding, they just did actual bench testing. I have a 3050ti mobile with 4gb VRAM and I get about 45ish FPS with settings on medium, and dips into like 28. I think my range is 25-72 or something. Some parts of the DLC, like in Dogtown, I do get less FPS, however there are some parts so far that I’m getting the best frames I’ve gotten. Like 60 during a major boss fight, it was crazy. Of course then after it dipped down again but still. It’s absolutely worth it to play, can you totally run it on a 3070
Kinda same for me. I bought it on release and while I could play some, I had to wait a good 6 months to actually play the game to completion due to all the crashes. However, I started a new game recently with the 2.0 patch and picked up the Phantom Liberty DLC and I'm having a lot of fun with it. And I think the DLC is really well done. Say what you will about CDPR, but those folks know how to make good DLC.
The Cyberpunk 2077 hype got me excited because I love the Deus Ex games. I was ready to mainline that technological dystopian future.
After hearing about the terrible reception, I decided it was just time to play Human Revolution again.
Starfield is currently in a far worse state than cyberpunk was at release. There was a hate train for CP77.
I completely disagree with that, starfield isn't nearly as buggy as cyberpunk was
On pc, it is. But you gotta choose where to put your faith, and Bethesda had blind faith from its players for ages.
not in my experience it isn't I have like 50 hours in starfield and I've had very little bugs at all
That is exactly what anecdotal evidence is. And that is precisely why it's not relyable.
You are giving anecdotal evidence.
What isnt anecdotal evidence is that 2077 was so buggy it was preventing people from playing the game, and the game breaking bugs were well documented.
While starfield has no consistent and unavoidable game breaking issues. As shown by zero documentation of stable game breaking bugs.
Theyre not the same.
couldn't have said it better myself
Ha, I see you didn't play on previous gen consoles. It was borderline unplayable on Xbox One at release. Terrible frame rate, massive portions of the city disappearing and/or low res, crashes everywhere…
Granted Starfield isn't even playable on Xbox One, but between low FPS and normal Bethesda style bugs, I don't think it's in a worse state than Cyberpunk was on PC/Series.
It's funny how the double standards work. "normal Bethesda style bugs"…
I don't think it's really a double standard. I was using that as an example of a negative that impacts gameplay in Starfield but doesn't make it completely unplayable like Cyberpunk was. I didn't say "Starfield is perfect, but Cyberpunk sucks".
Personally I think some issues with AI pathing and dodgy procedural generation (Bethesda style bugs) is not quite as bad as the whole world failing to load causing you to fall through the map and die, for example.
I remember when everyone was joking about T posing in cyberpunk, i've seen it happen in cyberpunk just once… and 3 times in starfield.
Much of this feels subjective. If you focused on the main game then cyberpunk was great, but look to hard in the details and the illusion fell flat. Star field feels much more complete in these details but anything that is not top level hardware gives a worse performance and looks then i had in modded skyrim.
The game simply didn't work on outdated hardware. No one in good faith is denying that.
Bad faith is taking example of the game running on outdated hardware as reprentative of what the game was.
CP77 worked perfectly well on the hardware it that was able to run it.
On the other hand I have friends unable to play starfield because the game crashes regularly. Their computer can run any other recent game like CP77 or BG3 for example.
That is anecdotal evidence. I'm not saying starfield is unplayable. Unlike you are saying CP77 was unplayable at launch, which is wrong. It was unplayable on outdated hardware.
Sure, you can frame it as not working on outdated hardware. I even mentioned that Starfield didn't even release on that generation of consoles.
The problem is the Cyberpunk DID release on that generation of consoles. You buy a copy on console, you expect it at least to function. My anecdotal evidence: it was literally unplayable. O stopped playing and never went back.
Comparing that to PC is more akin bad faith. There's a huge range PC wise and while its unacceptable for a certain combo of hardware to be unable to run the game, expecting outdated hardware to run the game on PC is expected. Are you saying there were no such issues like this for Cyberpunk on PC at launch?
Expecting outdated hardware to run a game is never expected and it has never been. Crysis for example even based its communication on the fact it couldn't run on even 2 years old hardware. Supreme commander was notoriously hard on the hardware. Hardware before the advent of multiplatform had a life expectancy of between 2 and 5 years.
I played the game at release and I finished it before Christmas, so before the January patch. I had no bug whatsoever. The game ran smoothly from start to finish.
I'm a pc gamer. So I know to beware of pc spec for a new game. Sorry you were fooled into thinking the game would work fine on an outdated machine. But cdpr was quite nice with it and the refunds. Which should prove their good faith. My friend couldn't get a refund for starfield.
This sounds like you played from a HDD instead of a SSD. That part of the system requirements is quickly becoming "not a suggestion". I realize most console players don't touch their hardware at all, but what you're describing is exactly the set of problems with running it from an HDD aside from the audio usually being scratchy/choppy in addition to all that on PC as well.
I have an external SSD, but that’s besides the point. The whole point of a console is that it’s a standardised piece of hardware and you can expect games to run on it out of the box.
Why are people disputing the fact that the game barely ran on Xbox One on release? That was what most of the bad PR was about at the time…
Starfield wasn't overhyped unlike Cyberpunk, so it got way less flack and was received much better. It also doesn't crash every couple of minutes for most, so that is a plus.
Cyberpunk didn't crash for most. It worked well at release for most actually. See the steam rating for proof.
Meanwhile some friends can't play starfield because it does crash all the time. And I'm not even talking about its shortcomings as a game.
What I suspect is that the game work on console, and that's the only thing that matters to your online reputation. That was the only true sin of CP77, and the only success of starfield, and that's all the difference.
It was not the only true sin of cyberpunk. I played on release on a 3090 and it was bland, felt rushed, full of bugs, and the city felt hollow with things spawning in and out breaking immersion. It just wasn't a fun game unless you stuck to the rails, and even then it felt half-assed. The intro where I'm rushed into the city and then they just skip over all the character introductions with a cutscene really left a sour taste in my mouth.
They hyped it up to be this living breathing city with ultimate freedom and they simply didn't deliver.
Starfield, however, everyone knew they were using the same old engine, with the same old game design, it was just going to be Skyrim in space. And it was.
I don't think I've ever met anyone who thought the Sinnerman quest was 'bland' - and if you thought The Hunt was bland, uh, I'm sorry. I had to go hug my kids.
Maybe I've somehow made it into my 40's without being jaded.
I'm talking about the world on the whole, because unfortunately I got bored and was so disappointed in the offerings that I probably didn't play the missions you mentioned, and dropped it out of my to-play list, as other games have been more engaging.
Well in my opinion you missed out big. I played about… 6-8 months after launch and it's now my 3rd most played game on steam. The world-building is incredible, where you're constantly overhearing things happening around the city that later you actually get to witness. Some of the quests are probably my favourite in any game, ever. Not to mention the combat (especially post 2.0) is way more fun than I was expecting. Using Mantis Blades you feel like a bug from Starship Troopers. I have a screenshot somewhere of three arms and two legs all airborne in my vision as I tore through some unfortunate gangers.
I haven't played the DLC yet, but it's next in my queue.
Did you have the game on a hdd or an ssd? That was a big technical problem of CP77. On an ssd it worked perfectly fine.
Bland, rushed and full of bugs is an exaggeration and very subjective. Starfield is worst on that aspect.
Again, look at steam ratings if you want to see an objective rating of the game since launch. CP77 had 20% of bad review despite the flaming even on media that never talked about a video game before, and that is since the first month of release. It's a bit early for starfield but current evaluation is at 28% of bad reviews.
Starfield has a worst launch than CP77. That is a hard fact.
Again, no it wasn't perfectly fine. Of course, I had it on an M2 drive. No amount of whitewashing can cover up the fact it was broken and unfinished on launch, and that's why there was such a well deserved backlash.
They promised things that simply weren't in the game. There were clear unfinished parts of the world, the story, and the gameplay.
Starfield is Skyrim in space. If you like that formula, great, you got Skyrim in space.
It's not whitewashing when the statistics talk for themselves.
Ouh I touch a sensible subject it seems!
And nearly 10 years of hype