The same place where all the wrath of the cringefinder defenders have gone - slurping on that delicious foot in their mouths.
Well, for starters, the game was supposed to be an RPG, not another GTA or RDR. And the reasons for which it is objectively shit are quite more fundamental than it being woefully undertested, buggy and in overall abysmal technical state. Those reasons go back to the core design and, possibly more so, the contrast of this design to the game's fraudulent marketing.
are you ok?
People love a good roast. The game isn't terrible across the board, it has the odd moment, but it's eminently mediocre in aggregate and that's a massive disappointment relative to the opportunity it had and the expectations it set. It's CDPR's Invisible War.
RDR is shit, GTA is shit, and the most underwhelming parts of both TW3 and CBP is where CDPR drew from that shit. Not that it's a surprise, the studio heads outright said they regard Rockstar as their model of success. It's just that TW3 could leverage its much superior art direction and narrative agency to shine in spite of those mechanical shortcomings, whereas with CBP, multiple mistakes in core design actively work against the game's general flow and pacing and the devs didn't recognise where their TW3 formula wouldn't port well to the new concept.
I agree that compared with RDR 2, Cyberbug feels like a real game and not a horse simulator, however, extremely tired of multi million companies with marketing budgets bigger than the money invested in actual development releasing products in a shit state. If it is an indie game with ambitious goals but short budgets, I have patience with bugs and nonsense, but a big budget project with pasteurized AAA standard gameplay gets alot less patience from me.
Yep, most certainly. Part of the problem is that CDPR seemingly didn't fully grasp what made TW3 so successful, just like they didn't appreciate how throwing "FPS" and "dense urban setting" into that formula would change the demands on the design and their customer base's expectations of it. So instead of consolidating that hard-earned grip on the single-player AARPG market, they ended up damaging their own brand. Some of it can be blamed on the pressures of a publicly-traded company, okay, but it's also clear the studio has some serious lapses in its design department.
The game was playable from day 1,it just wasn't what anyone wanted or expected.
So... it wouldn't cause the quest to fail?
I mean yeah you could play the game finish it and enjoy some of the aspects. But it still stands as an example of everything wrong with modern open world game design.
