Cyberpunk 2077 Pre-Release Thread [GAME RELEASED, GO TO NEW THREAD]

[AwesomeButton]

but I think we are still a much different society than what we will be when this and other technologies mature.

Wow, thats like... deep.
Imagine that, when cybrpunk technologies become magically available... the human society will be different.
Fuck me, who could have ever imagined that!!! You're the proper fucking Nostradamus here Awesomebutthole. Tell us more of your incredible two synapses visions of the future.

Ok, I heared you the first time, now stop quoting me you fucking dumbfuck.

 

[Abhay]

Is this really necessary to include in the game? Utter pointless addition.

It is a necessity when you are trying to sell to the mass audience. A portion of it expects such features and even likes them in some retarded fashion, but that isnt important. Whats important is that they shell out the dollars.
CD Projekt isnt making the game for you.

Is there any stat or number available which shows the effect of romance options on sales. If they are trying to sell ALL types of audiences then at least design romance options beyond just dialogues and sex scenes. Like making your partner to join you in missions, for instance?
Plus Witcher 3. Why should they repeat the same experiences with Cyberpunk? This is one of my major complaints with Rockstar games. Its the same, old experiences with same features, situations and consequences getting repeated time and again on every GTA release.

I haven't seen that many people who favour including romance options, mostly outright dislike them.

 

[Mr. Hiver]

At least for what I was getting at, I think you might be associating organized religion too closely with the broader idea of religion/spirituality/whatever gay shit you want to believe that says that you aren't the centre of the universe/etc.

Oh shit! You can read my thoughts!

It must be the heavenly power bestowed upon you by ALMIGHTY HIIMSELF. Or, your idiotic ego. Which is about the same thing.

Exactly what inherent in the world tells you what is right and wrong without a spiritual element?

Everything. And whats the "spiritual element"? Really, since you mention it you must know and should be able to explain it.

It isn't rationality, which some people might blindly assert these days, as practicality often favours choices that go against morals.

Rationality is a part of it, but im not one of those people anyway. It sometimes goes against "morals" but,

1. Morals are not a finished complete concept. We sre still evolving, developing and adjusting them to every new thing and condition we experience.

2. Rationality also can understand that doing "amoral" selfish things can be a very bad thing in the long run, as we are a species of individuals that cooperates a lot and none of us can survive on its complete own.

3. That balance between satisfying selfish needs and behaving in a way that doesnt destroy you as an individual inside a larger group, or the group itself - IS WHAT OUR MORALITY - is.

We have been studying it by trial and error and then much, much later as an intellectual idea for ... some three billion years.
We started way before we had any brains to speak of, let alone any fucking "rationality".

The idea that we are part of something more than our individual self is something that has crossed cultures and specific religions, but it is a religious idea fundamentally; you can tell so, because it isn't intrinsic in pagan or atheistic systems of belief.

Nope. The idea we are a part of something more came to be - because we literally are. Every creature feels it in their bones, because its simple reality. Physically, realistically, in every possible way. And every religion just appropriated that natural understanding of our place in reality of the universe - as their own special shit to sell back to you - under specific conditions.

And obviously, religion has been misused in the name of self-interest, but that's a fault of individuals, not the idea itself.

Riiiight, riiiiight. Of course. Dont badmouth religion OR you wont get into heaven! lol

The idea of banks isn't inherently bad just because some banks are scummy and caused a financial collapse, for example.

Oh no, they are perfect and should be left to do whatever the fuck they want. Just like religions. The same thing.

 

[Mr. Hiver]

Ok, I heared you the first time, now stop quoting me you fucking dumbfuck.

Projecting again, ts, ts... well maybe, if you stop saying such awesome insightful things awesomebutthole. But i dont think you can. That genius is simply spraying out of you like a river.
Im going to keep you under close observation. Dont wanna miss any of those awesome insights.

Is there any stat or number available which shows the effect of romance options on sales.

Ask their marketing department. Or, take a look at how many articles and clicks the game got.

Why should they repeat the same experiences with Cyberpunk? This is one of my major complaints with Rockstar games. Its the same, old experiences with same features, situations and consequences getting repeated time and again on every GTA release.

And every GTA sells like cancer cure hot cakes.

I haven't seen that many people who favour including romance options, mostly outright dislike them.

You dont know many people. you live in echo chambers.

If they are trying to sell ALL types of audiences then at least design romance options beyond just dialogues and sex scenes. Like making your partner to join you in missions, for instance?

Too complex, too costly in time and resources while the same effect can be achieved for much less.

Although, considering how they did those features in previous games, there is no reason to think they will do a bioware shit job of it or worse.

 

[Tytus]

And every GTA sells like cancer cure hot cakes.

Stop lying. GTA sold only 110 mln copies.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/erikka...auto-vs-110-million-copies-sold-into-context/

Cancer cure hot cakes would sell a lot more!

 

[Mr. Hiver]

Not if a US company is selling them. Badum... ahem, cough...

 

[Assisted Living Godzilla]

And every GTA sells like cancer cure hot cakes.

Stop lying. GTA sold only 110 mln copies.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/erikka...auto-vs-110-million-copies-sold-into-context/

Cancer cure hot cakes would sell a lot more!

Shit, that's a lot. Since that many people probably haven't gotten cancer in that amount of time, Hot Cake Cancer Cure might not sell as well as GTAV.

 

[Tytus]

And every GTA sells like cancer cure hot cakes.

Stop lying. GTA sold only 110 mln copies.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/erikka...auto-vs-110-million-copies-sold-into-context/

Cancer cure hot cakes would sell a lot more!

Shit, that's a lot. Since that many people probably haven't gotten cancer in that amount of time, Hot Cake Cancer Cure might not sell as well as GTAV.

Healthy people would buy Cancer Cure Hot Cakes much more ofthen then ill people. They would eat them as a preventive measure to kill cancer that they might have but don't know about it yet. You would see Soccer Moms putting Cancer Cute Hot Cakes into launches of their children. Let's be realistic here

 

[meatface]

At least for what I was getting at, I think you might be associating organized religion too closely with the broader idea of religion/spirituality/whatever gay shit you want to believe that says that you aren't the centre of the universe/etc.

Oh shit! You can read my thoughts!

It must be the heavenly power bestowed upon you by ALMIGHTY HIIMSELF. Or, your idiotic ego. Which is about the same thing.

Hahaha, dude, I think we agree on a lot of stuff, but you got triggered cuz I used the word "religion", which I think you and I are defining differently. Let's throw that word out for a sec and see the commonality in the details.

Exactly what inherent in the world tells you what is right and wrong without a spiritual element?

Everything, moron. And whats the "spiritual element"? Really, since you mention it you must know and should be able to explain it.

The "spiritual element" I was talking about could be described as "feeling"; it's NOT rational: it's an intuitive sense that we are part of something bigger and that we OUGHT to act a certain way. When it comes to surviving in the world, there's nothing rational about saying we ought to be good, as often what will best guarantee survival isn't "good". The idea that we should act in accordance with an unseen greater good defies both Darwinism and logic: I won't say that it's a spiritual idea (because that seems to be another trigger word), but it's not rational, and it's not evolutionary, and yet it seems to make sense to all of us, right? Call it what you will, I agree that it is as old as we can remember. My original point several replies ago was that modern society is phasing this idea out in favour of a self-centred view of the word. I'm not saying people need to come to Jesus.

It isn't rationality, which some people might blindly assert these days, as practicality often favours choices that go against morals.

Rationality is a part of it, but im not one of those people anyway. It sometimes goes against "morals" but,

1. Morals are not a finished complete concept. We sre still evolving, developing and adjusting them to every new thing and condition we experience.

2. Rationality also can understand that doing "amoral" selfish things can be a very bad thing in the long run, as we are a species of individuals that cooperates a lot and none of us can survive on its complete own.

3. That balance between satisfying selfish needs and behaving in a way that doesnt destroy you as an individual inside a larger group, or the group itself - IS WHAT OUR MORALITY - is.

We have been studying it by trial and error and then much, much later as an intellectual idea for ... some three billion years.
We started way before we had any brains to speak of, let alone any fucking "rationality".

Morals can be tricky to apply in grey areas, but the point is that we should try and define them as clearly as possible, because once you descend into grey areas, it can be very difficult to draw the line. The idea of killing is a grey area, but murder is clearly not. However, you can make a rational case for murder, given the right circumstances.

The idea that we are part of something more than our individual self is something that has crossed cultures and specific religions, but it is a religious idea fundamentally; you can tell so, because it isn't intrinsic in pagan or atheistic systems of belief.

Nope. The idea we are a part of something more came to be - because we literally are. Every creature feels it in their bones, because its simple reality. Physically, realistically, in every possible way. And every religion just appropriated that natural understanding of our place in reality of the universe - as their own special shit to sell back to you - under specific conditions.

What I bolded is literally what I'm trying to say, but without the words "religion" or "spirituality". You might say that this is clearly implicit in life, and I would agree, but I'm sure I could find a million and one angry atheists that would disagree.

And obviously, religion has been misused in the name of self-interest, but that's a fault of individuals, not the idea itself.

Riiiight, riiiiight. Of course. Dont badmouth religion OR you wont get into heaven! lol

The idea of banks isn't inherently bad just because some banks are scummy and caused a financial collapse, for example.

Oh no, they are perfect and should be left to do whatever the fuck they want. Just like religions. The same thing.

This all sounds like you are assuming I have an agenda that I don't. I don't subscribe to a religion, but I do think that blind, self-centred atheism is misguided, and at least where I live, I see more and more of that all the time.

 

[Tytus]

Could mods maybe move this discussion about religion to some other thread? Asking for a friend.

 

[cvv]

Apart from one key detail (which certain political factions are busily working to "correct"), and considering numerous other factors you haven't mentioned, you just described the world we are living in today. The answer is fairly straightforward: There would barely be any differences in perception at all

The public perception is not so even and not so universally approving, neither are augmentations so widespread.

Plus when the aug age really arrives the augmentations - or anything else about the future, really - are not likely to be anything like in 2077.

In fact, that's my only beef with the game so far - it's based on the aesthetics and ideas that cyberpunk worked with in the mid 1980s. Nothing wrong with classics ofc but since then the genre evolved enormously, especially since Stephenson's Diamond Age. The vision of an augmented, computerized society in something like River of Gods by Ian McDonald is so much more sophisticated, savvy and convincing. Compared to that the early-cyberpunk gibsonian vision looks a bit like the first robots from 1950 with tin can body on wheels and rubber arms.

That said vast majority of ppl aren't long-term fans with 20 years of reading cyberpunk under their belt like me so they won't give a shit. A girl with half her face open like a can or a dude with golden forearms will look new and interesting and impressive to them. So I guess all's good for CDPR.

 

[meatface]

Could mods maybe move this discussion about religion to some other thread? Asking for a friend.

Sorry bro, I'll let it die.

Spoiler

And go to heaven, cuz clearly God is on my side.

But to the topic, I'm curious to see how perceptible Mike Pondsmith's involvement will feel in the final product. Admittedly, my experience with Cyberpunk 2020 is limited, but I feel like there's a 50% chance that having the creator deeply involved will produce something at least reasonably worthwhile (thematically, if not mechanically, as cRPGs aren't PnP).

 

[Yosharian]

I don't mind the reduction in overall complexity as long as what we do get has depth to it

 

[AwesomeButton]

Could mods maybe move this discussion about religion to some other thread? Asking for a friend.

Sorry bro, I'll let it die.

Spoiler

And go to heaven, cuz clearly God is on my side.

But to the topic, I'm curious to see how perceptible Mike Pondsmith's involvement will feel in the final product. Admittedly, my experience with Cyberpunk 2020 is limited, but I feel like there's a 50% chance that having the creator deeply involved will produce something at least reasonably worthwhile (thematically, if not mechanically, as cRPGs aren't PnP).

I don't mind the reduction in overall complexity as long as what we do get has depth to it

Like with the Witcher, I have no prior knowledge of the setting :D I'm optimistic it will be fun though, the Witcher is.

 

[cvv]

Like with the Witcher, I have no prior knowledge of the setting :D I'm optimistic it will be fun though, the Witcher is.

Exactly. And just like when Witcher kickstarted a worldwide interest in the books, I'm hoping people will play the game, fall in love with the genre and afterwards discover all the good stuff that was written since Pondsmith created 2020.

 

[Tytus]

Like with the Witcher, I have no prior knowledge of the setting :D I'm optimistic it will be fun though, the Witcher is.

Exactly. And just like when Witcher kickstarted a worldwide interest in the books, I'm hoping people will play the game, fall in love with the genre and afterwards discover all the good stuff that was written since Pondsmith created 2020.

PnP games are much more of a niche hobby compared to reading books. Not many people will play them. But it could spark interest in the genre though. Maybe we will get more CP themed games and movies.
Johny Mnemonic 2 confirmed.

 

[Rahdulan]

Like with the Witcher, I have no prior knowledge of the setting :D I'm optimistic it will be fun though, the Witcher is.

Exactly. And just like when Witcher kickstarted a worldwide interest in the books, I'm hoping people will play the game, fall in love with the genre and afterwards discover all the good stuff that was written since Pondsmith created 2020.

I think roleplaying books and novels are not exactly same. Sadly, Cyberpunk 2020 doesn't exactly have much fiction to read unlike, for example, Shadowrun or BattleTech franchise. Wonder if those respective games got people interested in their novels after the fact.

 

[Tytus]

Like with the Witcher, I have no prior knowledge of the setting :D I'm optimistic it will be fun though, the Witcher is.

Exactly. And just like when Witcher kickstarted a worldwide interest in the books, I'm hoping people will play the game, fall in love with the genre and afterwards discover all the good stuff that was written since Pondsmith created 2020.

I think roleplaying books and novels are not exactly same. Sadly, Cyberpunk 2020 doesn't exactly have much fiction to read unlike, for example, Shadowrun or BattleTech franchise. Wonder if those respective games got people interested in their novels after the fact.

It made me interested. But not many books were published in Potatoland.

And the ones that did are hard to get.

I'm currentlt hunting for:

https://www.amazon.com/Never-Deal-Dragon-Shadownrun-Vol/dp/0451450787

But I only saw 2nd and 3rd book from the series on polish auction sites.

 

[Sailor Woedica]

https://www.pcgamer.com/cyberpunk-2077-romance-options/

Finally some real talk, about the most important feature of the game:

Cyberpunk 2077 will have more romance options than The Witcher 3



Since it's your character, you have more freedom with romance in Cyberpunk 2077.

CD Projekt Red has said it's working to give players a ton of options when creating their characters in Cyberpunk 2077, including a range of gender expressions, and its lead quest designer has said these choices will mean way more romance options than the strictly heterosexual relationships featured in The Witcher 3.

A redditor who goes by magired1234 shared what appears to be a Twitter DM conversation with Paweł Sasko, a lead quest designer at CDPR. In the snippet shared, Sasko says players can expect to see whole plotlines involving NPCs that might be romantically interested in your character, and that they'll be "similar" in depth and scope to those found in The Witcher 3.

But because Cyberpunk 2077 will give players free reign to define their character, romance options have been expanded to accommodate for this as well.

CD Projekt Red clarified to us further: "Romancing is something heavily present in Cyberpunk, and players will be able to form meaningful connections with other characters as well as go for one night stands."

That'll be true no matter the gender or sexuality of your chosen character, too.

"Since we're not bound by a predefined character like in The Witcher anymore, the game will feature romance options going beyond heterosexual," CDPR said.

These are all promising things to hear, and it will be interesting to see how different characters' romances play out once we get our hands on Cyberpunk 2077 next year.

It’s totally awesome that they’re being inclusive, so cool to see!

 

[cvv]

PnP games are much more of a niche hobby compared to reading books.

It made me interested. But not many books were published in Potatoland.

I think roleplaying books and novels are not exactly same. Sadly, Cyberpunk 2020 doesn't exactly have much fiction to read unlike, for example, Shadowrun or BattleTech

I wasn't talking about PnP or franchises like Shadowrun or BattleTech. Nothing against them but they are kinnda in the pulp basement of the genre. You gotta read the prestigious stuff.

For anyone interested in digging deeper into the genre, this is my beginner's guide. It'll take you from the dawn of the genre in the 1970s, where it was still more of a light adventure than anything else, through the gibsonian era of mirror shades, leather jackets and eevul corporaishuns all the way to the prestigious pinnacles of modern day post-cyberpunk.

Pre-cyberpunk:
- Alfred Bester: The Stars My Destination, Bruce Sterling: Schismatrix, Walter John Williams: Hardwired

Mirror shades and eevul corporaishuns (not light reading anymore, requires prestigiousness):
- William Gibson: Neuromancer, Rudy Rucker: Software, Bruce Sterling: Islands in the Net, Lewis Shiner: Frontera, Neal Stephenson: Snow Crash; for weebs there's also Akira and Ghost in the Shell
- this is the era that 2077 is based on, aesthetically and philosophically

New sophistication:
- Neal Stephenson: Diamond Age, Richard Morgan: Altered Carbon, Cory Doctorow: Down and Out in the Magic Kingdom, Paul McAuley: Fairyland, Alastair Reynolds: Chasm City

Post-cyberpunk, the pinnacle:
- Ian McDonald: River of Gods, Neal Stephenson: Anathem, China Miéville: Perdido Street Station, Charless Stross: Accelerando

 

[jf8350143]

They are catering to their own audiences. Not Bioware's.

Witcher series was known for it's romances(aka sex) and hot ladies and such. It's nothing new.

 

[Jenkem]

Romance options?! SLAY! I can't wait to see all the different ways they can explore romance in a cyberpunk utopia, sis!

 

[Van-d-all]

Like with the Witcher, I have no prior knowledge of the setting :D I'm optimistic it will be fun though, the Witcher is.

Exactly. And just like when Witcher kickstarted a worldwide interest in the books, I'm hoping people will play the game, fall in love with the genre and afterwards discover all the good stuff that was written since Pondsmith created 2020.

I think roleplaying books and novels are not exactly same. Sadly, Cyberpunk 2020 doesn't exactly have much fiction to read unlike, for example, Shadowrun or BattleTech franchise. Wonder if those respective games got people interested in their novels after the fact.

It made me interested. But not many books were published in Potatoland.

And the ones that did are hard to get.

I'm currentlt hunting for:

https://www.amazon.com/Never-Deal-Dragon-Shadownrun-Vol/dp/0451450787

But I only saw 2nd and 3rd book from the series on polish auction sites.

I have it. It's tragically bad. I'm not a Shadowrun fan in general, but even HBS games had more depth. It's a kiddy grade generic story, but the cool kids are elves and evil corporation is a dragon. Has virtually zero novelty concepts, and fals flat on any kind of technological insight as computers and guns alike are just described as your generic longswords +1 albeit with a fancier name.

My personal suggestion would be to just go along with Gibson. The first two trilogies (the one that starts with Neuromancer and the one with Virtual Light) are fully translated into Polish (I actually liked the second one more, despite Neuromancer being kvlt and whatnot). The third trilogy (starting with Pattern Recognition) has first two books translated, and is quite unique because it takes place nowadays, yet remains cyberpunk. Lastly his newest book The Peripheral, was also translated not long ago. Essentially the comparison between that Shadowrun book and Gibson is like comparing Xena to LOTR.

 

[Tytus]

Like with the Witcher, I have no prior knowledge of the setting :D I'm optimistic it will be fun though, the Witcher is.

Exactly. And just like when Witcher kickstarted a worldwide interest in the books, I'm hoping people will play the game, fall in love with the genre and afterwards discover all the good stuff that was written since Pondsmith created 2020.

I think roleplaying books and novels are not exactly same. Sadly, Cyberpunk 2020 doesn't exactly have much fiction to read unlike, for example, Shadowrun or BattleTech franchise. Wonder if those respective games got people interested in their novels after the fact.

It made me interested. But not many books were published in Potatoland.

And the ones that did are hard to get.

I'm currentlt hunting for:

https://www.amazon.com/Never-Deal-Dragon-Shadownrun-Vol/dp/0451450787

But I only saw 2nd and 3rd book from the series on polish auction sites.

I have it. It's tragically bad. I'm not a Shadowrun fan in general, but even HBS games had more depth. It's a kiddy grade generic story, but the cool kids are elves and evil corporation is a dragon. Has virtually zero novelty concepts, and fals flat on any kind of technological insight as computers and guns alike are just described as your generic longswords +1 albeit with a fancier name.

Thanks for saving me money and time.

 

[jf8350143]

Trying to lure bioware romance audience.

Yeah, what could go wrong? After all, Bioware closed their forums to improve communication and transformed into an insignificant mmo studio, because they wanted to. So it must be a good idea for CDPR, to go the same path.

Witcher 3 had like 5 romance options that mattered (counting with the expansions) this probably will have 10 or more, because they need to cater to all those trans gay players that will buy their game. All six of them.

There is only 3 "romance" options in the game: Triss, Yenn and Shani(from the DLC).

The rest is one night stand, and the one from Blood and Wine is the most forced I've ever seen, more so than anything Bioware has ever done. She just straight up says "I might be dead tomorrow so let's have sex now" and it's all out of nowhere. It's there because the tradition of Witcher series to have Geralt bang hot ladies.