306
Cyberpunk 2077 team morale took "significant hit" following release, developer says
(www.eurogamer.net)
this post was submitted on 16 Oct 2023
306 points (95.5% liked)
Games
16856 readers
1200 users here now
Video game news oriented community. No NanoUFO is not a bot :)
Posts.
- News oriented content (general reviews, previews or retrospectives allowed).
- Broad discussion posts (preferably not only about a specific game).
- No humor/memes etc..
- No affiliate links
- No advertising.
- No clickbait, editorialized, sensational titles. State the game in question in the title. No all caps.
- No self promotion.
- No duplicate posts, newer post will be deleted unless there is more discussion in one of the posts.
- No politics.
Comments.
- No personal attacks.
- Obey instance rules.
- No low effort comments(one or two words, emoji etc..)
- Please use spoiler tags for spoilers.
My goal is just to have a community where people can go and see what new game news is out for the day and comment on it.
Other communities:
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
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.
I was fooled into thinking an Xbox One game would be playable on an Xbox One? What are you even talking about?
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...