'Cyberpunk 2077 is an Open World Game with a Strong Narrative Component' Says Dev - MMORPG.com

SBFord

'Cyberpunk 2077 is an Open World Game with a Strong Narrative Component' Says Dev - MMORPG.com

Spanish site AreaJugones has a beefy new interview with Cyberpunk 2077 Lead Quest Designer Mateusz Tomaszkiewicz. In it, he covers topics such as the polishing process, how gameplay is different than last year's E3 demo, shooting mechanics, how first person fits within the RPG genre, whether or not there will be Witcher-themed easter eggs, missions, gunplay and what games inspire him in his work on the game.

Read the full story here

Albatroes

I'm just waiting for them to throw out "By the way, Epic Games exclusive...."

Daakkon

Everywhere else BUT the epic store exclusive is what i'm waiting for.

SBFord

Albatroes said:

I'm just waiting for them to throw out "By the way, Epic Games exclusive...."

There's actually a question about the Epic Game Store in the interview. If you look at the full article, there's a link to the Spanish site. With Google Translate (right click on the page --> translate), you can read his answer.

Aeander

Albatroes said:

I'm just waiting for them to throw out "By the way, Epic Games exclusive...."

Not going to happen for the simple reason that CDPR have their own storefront. 

Albatroes

Aeander said:

Albatroes said:

I'm just waiting for them to throw out "By the way, Epic Games exclusive...."

Not going to happen for the simple reason that CDPR have their own storefront. 

Doesn't ubisoft have their own storefront....?

SBFord said:

Albatroes said:

I'm just waiting for them to throw out "By the way, Epic Games exclusive...."

There's actually a question about the Epic Game Store in the interview. If you look at the full article, there's a link to the Spanish site. With Google Translate (right click on the page --> translate), you can read his answer.

As for the interview, he doesn't really say anything lol. He just says that its annoying to have a bunch of stuff to access other stuff.

Mr.Gutsy

Albatroes said:

I'm just waiting for them to throw out "By the way, Epic Games exclusive...."

GOG

Aeander

Albatroes said:

Aeander said:

Albatroes said:

I'm just waiting for them to throw out "By the way, Epic Games exclusive...."

Not going to happen for the simple reason that CDPR have their own storefront. 

Doesn't ubisoft have their own storefront....?

SBFord said:

Albatroes said:

I'm just waiting for them to throw out "By the way, Epic Games exclusive...."

There's actually a question about the Epic Game Store in the interview. If you look at the full article, there's a link to the Spanish site. With Google Translate (right click on the page --> translate), you can read his answer.

As for the interview, he doesn't really say anything lol. He just says that its annoying to have a bunch of stuff to access other stuff.

And by definition, Ubisoft games aren't truly epic exclusive for that reason.

But even ignoring that, the storefronts are different. GOG is a 1st AND 3rd party storefront that sells itself on consumer-friendly non-DRM games. UPlay exists solely to sell Ubisoft first party titles.

Asm0deus

https://translate.google.ca/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&u=https://areajugones.sport.es/2019/04/20/cyberpunk-2077-es-una-mezcla-de-elder-scrolls-y-deus-ex-entrevista-a-cd-projekt/

Mr.Gutsy

Aeander said:

Albatroes said:

Aeander said:

Albatroes said:

I'm just waiting for them to throw out "By the way, Epic Games exclusive...."

Not going to happen for the simple reason that CDPR have their own storefront. 

Doesn't ubisoft have their own storefront....?

SBFord said:

Albatroes said:

I'm just waiting for them to throw out "By the way, Epic Games exclusive...."

There's actually a question about the Epic Game Store in the interview. If you look at the full article, there's a link to the Spanish site. With Google Translate (right click on the page --> translate), you can read his answer.

As for the interview, he doesn't really say anything lol. He just says that its annoying to have a bunch of stuff to access other stuff.

And by definition, Ubisoft games aren't truly epic exclusive for that reason.

But even ignoring that, the storefronts are different. GOG is a 1st AND 3rd party storefront that sells itself on consumer-friendly non-DRM games. UPlay exists solely to sell Ubisoft first party titles.

I'll be buying on GOG.

WalkinGlenn

If they could make the world as large as Horizon Zero Dawn and the combat just as satisfying then i think this game can be a winner. I already love the theme.

Tiller

I don't understand why they think you need to be in first person for immersion, even if it's VR. The limitation is you not really physically part of the world, and no one is looking for an XB Kinect experience in a game like this.

For me and many others, 3rd person is immersive enough if the game is good. Using first person as an immersion crutch is BS and I plan on never touching this game because of it. If any of you like it, more power to ya, plenty of other open world games to spend my money on in my opinion, like Beyond Good and Evil 2.

Daakkon

Tiller said:

I don't understand why they think you need to be in first person for immersion, even if it's VR. The limitation is you not really physically part of the world, and no one is looking for an XB Kinect experience in a game like this.



For me and many others, 3rd person is immersive enough if the game is good. Using first person as an immersion crutch is BS and I plan on never touching this game because of it. If any of you like it, more power to ya, plenty of other open world games to spend my money on in my opinion, like Beyond Good and Evil 2.

lol

Sovrath

Tiller said:

I don't understand why they think you need to be in first person for immersion, even if it's VR. The limitation is you not really physically part of the world, and no one is looking for an XB Kinect experience in a game like this.

For me and many others, 3rd person is immersive enough if the game is good. Using first person as an immersion crutch is BS and I plan on never touching this game because of it. If any of you like it, more power to ya, plenty of other open world games to spend my money on in my opinion, like Beyond Good and Evil 2.

Well, there really is a palpable difference. And I suppose this is the experience they want to craft as creators.

I have no problem with it.

Aeander

Tiller said:

I don't understand why they think you need to be in first person for immersion, even if it's VR. The limitation is you not really physically part of the world, and no one is looking for an XB Kinect experience in a game like this.

For me and many others, 3rd person is immersive enough if the game is good. Using first person as an immersion crutch is BS and I plan on never touching this game because of it. If any of you like it, more power to ya, plenty of other open world games to spend my money on in my opinion, like Beyond Good and Evil 2.

First person is my biggest disappointment with the game. Third person is my preference because it offers more positional awareness and tactical information; it makes for inherently superior combat. And the immersion difference is arguable. I don't find immersion in being represented by two hands and a gun. I like having a full and customizable avatar; that is what immerses me.

I'm still going to buy and probably enjoy the game. I can still tolerate first person. But the first person exclusivity changed this from a title that rated at the top of my most anticipated list to one that I am not anticipating, and will pick up just because I know what CDPR is capable of. If this were a game by a lesser studio, I might not have picked it up at all.

JeffSpicoli

It's hard to have faith in any big budget game these days but im keeping my fingers crossed on this one.

Sovrath

Aeander said:

Tiller said:

I don't understand why they think you need to be in first person for immersion, even if it's VR. The limitation is you not really physically part of the world, and no one is looking for an XB Kinect experience in a game like this.

For me and many others, 3rd person is immersive enough if the game is good. Using first person as an immersion crutch is BS and I plan on never touching this game because of it. If any of you like it, more power to ya, plenty of other open world games to spend my money on in my opinion, like Beyond Good and Evil 2.

First person is my biggest disappointment with the game. Third person is my preference because it offers more positional awareness and tactical information; it makes for inherently superior combat. And the immersion difference is arguable. I don't find immersion in being represented by two hands and a gun. I like having a full and customizable avatar; that is what immerses me.

I'm still going to buy and probably enjoy the game. I can still tolerate first person. But the first person exclusivity changed this from a title that rated at the top of my most anticipated list to one that I am not anticipating, and will pick up just because I know what CDPR is capable of. If this were a game by a lesser studio, I might not have picked it up at all.

I would say that 1st person makes actual positional awareness a real thing. 3rd person gives you a birds eye view to everything around you. 1st person makes you have to pay attention to where you are and where your enemies are.

As far as game play I think it's superior. You need to be aware of everything. As far as "watching the movie of your character, obviously 3rd person does that.

Aeander

Sovrath said:

Aeander said:

Tiller said:

I don't understand why they think you need to be in first person for immersion, even if it's VR. The limitation is you not really physically part of the world, and no one is looking for an XB Kinect experience in a game like this.

For me and many others, 3rd person is immersive enough if the game is good. Using first person as an immersion crutch is BS and I plan on never touching this game because of it. If any of you like it, more power to ya, plenty of other open world games to spend my money on in my opinion, like Beyond Good and Evil 2.

First person is my biggest disappointment with the game. Third person is my preference because it offers more positional awareness and tactical information; it makes for inherently superior combat. And the immersion difference is arguable. I don't find immersion in being represented by two hands and a gun. I like having a full and customizable avatar; that is what immerses me.

I'm still going to buy and probably enjoy the game. I can still tolerate first person. But the first person exclusivity changed this from a title that rated at the top of my most anticipated list to one that I am not anticipating, and will pick up just because I know what CDPR is capable of. If this were a game by a lesser studio, I might not have picked it up at all.

I would say that 1st person makes actual positional awareness a real thing. 3rd person gives you a birds eye view to everything around you. 1st person makes you have to pay attention to where you are and where your enemies are.

As far as game play I think it's superior. You need to be aware of everything. As far as "watching the movie of your character, obviously 3rd person does that.

Agree to disagree.

But there's a reason why first person shooters don't (typically) emphasize mobility as much as third person ones. There is a reason why action games such as Devil May Cry and Bayonetta aren't first person. It's because truly action-oriented, mobile combat systems aren't feasible in first person, and even if they were, a large portion of the playerbase would suffer from motion sickness.

Sovrath

If you are in first person then you MUST be attentive to where you are and where your enemies are.

If you are in 3rd you get to see everything, where everyone is. Huge game play difference.

So "yes" first person is superior in having a game play experience where you must pay attention to where you are and where your enemies are.

3rd person is superior in letting you know where everything is.

As far as motion sickness, it's not like games that were solely 1st person never existed. I think, if they allow for a large field of view that should solve that yes? or no?

Cryomatrix

3rd person is easier to play, 1st person is more immersion and harder to play.

Scot

3rd person looks better and plays easier, 1st person plays better. But in the long run what do gaming companies care about? I think outside of pre-existing established 1st person shooters the whole of gaming is moving to 3rd person. Graphics and easy mode will triumph over better gameplay sadly.

FlyByKnight

How is 3rd person "easier" or "looks better" than 1st person? I always thought they were both just different ways to present a perspective for awareness and story telling. A reticle is reticle, you aim it and press a button.

I don't see how a game that is supposed to be about complete immersion (you are the character, not watching them), and situational awareness/experience is "disappointing" for having 1st person.  First person loans itself to the type of story telling they desire to relay.

What? You folks need another set of factions to break off into to feel apart of something? 3rd Person vs 1st Person?

Cut it out.

Shaigh

For a shooter I prefer first person, for games with mostly melee combat I prefer third person. How immersive it feels depends more on the environment and stories told within the game and less about viewing my character.

Aeander

FlyByKnight said:

How is 3rd person "easier" or "looks better" than 1st person? I always thought they were both just different ways to present a perspective for awareness and story telling. A reticle is reticle, you aim it and press a button.

I don't see how a game that is supposed to be about complete immersion (you are the character, not watching them), and situational awareness/experience is "disappointing" for having 1st person.  First person loans itself to the type of story telling they desire to relay.

What? You folks need another set of factions to break off into to feel apart of something? 3rd Person vs 1st Person?

Cut it out.

This debate is months old and it wasn't even new back then.

Ultimately, the two camera perspectives lend themselves to different gameplay styles, and that's fine. Whether one cares about the advantages of one perspective over another is just subjective. And ultimately, if a change of perspective (or any other mechanic) makes a product less appealing to you, re-evaluate your willingness to purchase it or the price point you are willing to purchase it at. That's what I've done. The lack of a perspective I want to play has changed this from a full price purchase to a discounted purchase for me.

As far as to what those advantages are, let's just say that for the sake of argument, I grant that first person is more immersive or visceral. I don't personally agree with that, but let's go with that. The tradeoff to this is a decrease in tactical and positional information given to the player at all times compared to third person (which in turn offers less continuous tactical and positional information than isometric), and the ramifications of that on a game's design should be obvious (and can be positive or negative).

Iselin

Aeander said:

FlyByKnight said:

How is 3rd person "easier" or "looks better" than 1st person? I always thought they were both just different ways to present a perspective for awareness and story telling. A reticle is reticle, you aim it and press a button.

I don't see how a game that is supposed to be about complete immersion (you are the character, not watching them), and situational awareness/experience is "disappointing" for having 1st person.  First person loans itself to the type of story telling they desire to relay.

What? You folks need another set of factions to break off into to feel apart of something? 3rd Person vs 1st Person?

Cut it out.

This debate is months old and it wasn't even new back then.

Ultimately, the two camera perspectives lend themselves to different gameplay styles, and that's fine. Whether one cares about the advantages of one perspective over another is just subjective. And ultimately, if a change of perspective (or any other mechanic) makes a product less appealing to you, re-evaluate your willingness to purchase it or the price point you are willing to purchase it at. That's what I've done. The lack of a perspective I want to play has changed this from a full price purchase to a discounted purchase for me.

As far as to what those advantages are, let's just say that for the sake of argument, I grant that first person is more immersive or visceral. I don't personally agree with that, but let's go with that. The tradeoff to this is a decrease in tactical and positional information given to the player at all times compared to third person (which in turn offers less continuous tactical and positional information than isometric), and the ramifications of that on a game's design should be obvious (and can be positive or negative).

Try years not months. This debate has been going on with RPGs since the 8-bit computer days. There have always been FPP ones along side the 3rd person ones and gamers who strongly preferred one over the other as well as those, myself included, that enjoy both.

FPP has always had it all over 3rd with respect to enviromental immersion while 3rd has it all over 1st with respect to enviromental awareness. 1st pulls you into the world. 3rd is more gamy with the preternatural perspective it provides.

In the end though I see the choice to go one way or the other for a particular game to be just one of many details that can help or hurt a game and not even one of the big factors.

Aeander

I think the conflict here is specifically because the change of perspective feels to some players like a betrayal.

CDPR is known for their third person games. Specifically one of, if not the, best third person RPGs ever made. Switching to first person perspective with no option to change was always going to anger some of their core fans, and I'm sure they knew that when they made that decision.