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

[Generic-Giant-Spider]

Maybe the Haitians are best at hacking because they don't run the risk of brain frying.

 

[Semiurge]

Okay. Each gang seems to have a specific rival. I know you can’t join a gang because you said so in the video,

I assure you, I'm really an egg - white on the outside but all yellow on the inside. I really want to be a Tyger and run with the Tongs!

 

[karoliner]

I'm just glad i don't need a new GPU for this.

 

[Silverfish]

Maybe the Haitians are best at hacking because they don't run the risk of brain frying.

I assure you, I'm really an egg - white on the outside but all yellow on the inside. I really want to be a Tyger and run with the Tongs!

"I've even been practicing that 'yoooooooooo' thing."

 

[Alexios]

I never played CB2020 so can someone explain why people get all these robotic implants and shit in this universe? Like why would some hooker or vagrant have robotic arms? How the fuck would they afford that? Why on earth would they willingly undergo such a procedure? Did steel and silicone somehow become ultra-cheap in this universe? I know the explanation is probably "it just looks cool shut up" but even things that just look cool often have some actual rationale.

 

[JDR13]

This is why I skipped the 20xx series. I could tell early on that ray tracing was almost a gimick on those cards. The 30xx series is supposedly twice as fast when it comes to rendering ray-traced scenes.

Hardware Unboxed just put out a detailed ray tracing benchmark that shows the 3080 is hit just as hard by ray tracing percentage wise, it just has more power to barrel through it better. You're still facing the choice of dramatically higher frames or ray tracing, even on the 3080.

No, it's not just because they're more powerful overall. The second generation of RT cores are approximately twice as efficient.

 

[DalekFlay]

No, it's not just because they're more powerful overall. The second generation of RT cores are approximately twice as efficient.

They said that's not the case, but even if you doubt that... does it matter? The benchmarks are what the benchmarks are. Point is, you're going to halve your framerate either way, 2080 or 3080. At the end of the day you're choosing dramatically higher framerates or ray tracing for now, no matter what card you buy.

 

[GhostCow]

No, it's not just because they're more powerful overall. The second generation of RT cores are approximately twice as efficient.

They said that's not the case, but even if you doubt that... does it matter? The benchmarks are what the benchmarks are. Point is, you're going to halve your framerate either way, 2080 or 3080. At the end of the day you're choosing dramatically higher framerates or ray tracing for now, no matter what card you buy.

That's never going to change. Asking for it to not hit your performance would be like asking MSAA to not lower your fps. There's a computational cost and there's nothing that can be done about that. Might as well get used to it and accept it now because eventually ray tracing won't be optional and that's going to come in less than 10 years.

 

[JDR13]

No, it's not just because they're more powerful overall. The second generation of RT cores are approximately twice as efficient.

They said that's not the case, but even if you doubt that... does it matter? The benchmarks are what the benchmarks are. Point is, you're going to halve your framerate either way, 2080 or 3080. At the end of the day you're choosing dramatically higher framerates or ray tracing for now, no matter what card you buy.

Who said that's not the case? Anyways, your logic doesn't make much sense and has nothing to do with my point which is that the 20xx series was one of those generations that was better off skipped unless you just really needed a new card at the time.

 

[DalekFlay]

That's never going to change. Asking for it to not hit your performance would be like asking MSAA to not lower your fps. There's a computational cost and there's nothing that can be done about that. Might as well get used to it and accept it now because eventually ray tracing won't be optional and that's going to come in less than 10 years.

Of course it will always have a cost, but it won't always be half your framerate. I don't think it's worth that today, with current games and hardware. Not sure why this is hard to understand.

Who said that's not the case? Anyways, your logic doesn't make much sense and has nothing to do with my point which is that the 20xx series was one of those generations that was better off skipped unless you just really needed a new card at the time.

My point was only that the 3080 doesn't make the cost of ray tracing go away. Your framerate is higher because of the better overall performance, but it still cuts in half with most ray tracing games. So you're choosing between 100fps or 50fps, instead of 80fps or 40fps. Was the 2000 series worth it for ray tracing? Obviously I don't think so, but I also am not sure I'd say the 3000 series is either, judging by the benchmarks with it on versus off. I'd pretty much always choose high refresh over ray tracing. Others might disagree.

 

[JDR13]

My point was only that the 3080 doesn't make the cost of ray tracing go away. Your framerate is higher because of the better performance, but it still cuts in half with most ray tracing games. So you're choosing between 120fps and 60fps, instead of 100fps and 50fps. Was the 2000 series worth it for ray tracing? Obviously I don't think so, but I also am not sure I'd say the 3000 series is either, judging by the benchmarks with it on versus off. I'd pretty much always choose high refresh over ray tracing. Others might disagree.

Of course it doesn't make the cost of ray tracing go away. Who would ever claim that? Hell, even normal supersampling still has a cost on modern cards. None of that has anything to do with what I was saying though.

 

[DalekFlay]

Of course it doesn't make the cost of ray tracing go away. Who would ever claim that? Hell, even normal supersampling still has a cost on modern cards. None of that has anything to do with what I was saying though.

You said:

This is why I skipped the 20xx series. I could tell early on that ray tracing was almost a gimick on those cards. The 30xx series is supposedly twice as fast when it comes to rendering ray-traced scenes.

I replied just to tell you ray tracing has the same percentage cost on the 3000 series, it's not "twice as fast" with ray tracing. Your overall performance is better because of massive gains in standard performance, but the ray tracing aspect still cuts into your performance almost as much as the 2000 cards. If the standard performance of the 3080 is high enough you think it's more worth halving your framerate for ray tracing then enjoy, but you're still gonna be making roughly the same calculation 2000 series owners are: half the framerate, or no ray tracing?

Good video on this:

 

[JDR13]

Of course it doesn't make the cost of ray tracing go away. Who would ever claim that? Hell, even normal supersampling still has a cost on modern cards. None of that has anything to do with what I was saying though.

You said:

This is why I skipped the 20xx series. I could tell early on that ray tracing was almost a gimick on those cards. The 30xx series is supposedly twice as fast when it comes to rendering ray-traced scenes.

I replied just to tell you ray tracing has the same percentage cost on the 3000 series, it's not "twice as fast" with ray tracing. Your overall performance is better because of massive gains in standard performance, but the ray tracing aspect still cuts into your performance almost as much as the 2000 cards. If the standard performance of the 3080 is high enough you think it's more worth halving your framerate for ray tracing then enjoy, but you're still gonna be making roughly the same calculation 2000 series owners are: half the framerate, or no ray tracing?

Good video on this:

Most people couldn't care less about "percentage cost" because it's largely irrelevant. It's overall performance that matters to them, and the 30xx series is one of the largest leaps from one generation to the next that Nvidia has ever put out.

Also, claiming to have to choose between high refresh and ray tracing is pure autism. The GTX 3080 is getting 60fps @ 4K with everything maxed in Metro Exodus.

https://www.techradar.com/reviews/nvidia-geforce-rtx-3080

Instead, what we get with the Nvidia GeForce RTX 3080 is a massive 50-80% boost in performance over the RTX 2080 at the same price point, not to mention a 20-30% boost over the RTX 2080 Ti, which retailed for nearly double the price.

And while we would have liked to see the prices go down to where the Pascal 10-series equivalents would have sat, we can now confirm that this really is the biggest generational leap in PC graphics we've seen in years – perhaps ever.

So while not twice as fast (Nvidia's claim not mine), it's a huge leap in overall performance for the same price. Again, my main point was simply that the 20xx series was a generation better off skipped imo, and this confirms that.

 

[Prime Junta]

Of course it will always have a cost, but it won't always be half your framerate. I don't think it's worth that today, with current games and hardware. Not sure why this is hard to understand.

What kind of a dumb argument is this? Who cares what the frame rate is without it, if the frame rate with it hits your target?

By the same argument there’s no point playing at a higher resolution because that cuts into your frame rate too. 480p on Low, 1,000,000 FPS, hurray, who cares that my monitor can’t use that, it’s the number that counts.

 

[SlamDunk]

 

[Deleted member 7219]

Looks like CDPR are anti-hyping the game, saying they’ve shortened the main story when the main story has always been one of the best things about their games.

I was planning on getting a new PC for this, but now I think I’ll wait even longer. I will probably get this when it is lower in price and has patches/DLC included.

The money I was going to spend on a new PC, I’ll put towards a new car instead.

 

[Kitchen Utensil]

Yeah, they want people to see the end, not maximise profits.

 

[Trans-Financial-Man]

The thing about it being shorter is this: Witcher 3 had god awful pacing issues. A lot of that was down to the entire plot for the game leaking and CDProjekt delaying the game so they could rejigger elements. They mostly pulled it off but you could see they were stretching out a 20 hour campaign into a 50 hour one. There was so much padding. So many awful fetch quests and backtracking, especially once you reached Novigrad.

So for Cyberpunk 2077 I hope this means a shorter, leaner campaign with more meaningful C&C and less padding. But I suspect that delaying and no doubt restructuring the game multiple times over the years will result in an uneven experience that lacks real identity. So you're getting less for more essentially. Maybe I'm wrong. I'm just speculating. I hope I'm wrong for sure. But every single video and announcement for Cyberpunk decreases my hype by small increments. Like raising taxes for the 99% over 40 years. It happened imperceptibly over time. But now I've thought about it I can't stop thinking about it. I would've been happy with a Deus Ex clone with multiple ways to use your cybernetics, guns, gadgets and diplomacy to solve missions but I also suspect that all the campaign content will be highly linear, and feature only one right way of doing things.

 

[Prime Junta]

Yeah Twitcher3 was way too big for its own good. It would have been way more enjoyable had they cut 60% of it, or more. If additionally there's more gameplay variety so it doesn't turn into a repetitive rote grind 20 hours in, then that's terrific.

I'm one of the ones who played really far into Twitcher3 but never quite made it to the end. I just got exhausted. The gameplay's too repetitive and there's only so much questing a man can take. I've tried to return to it on occasion but just can't, it's too much of a time sink.

Which is a shame because the good bits are really fucking good.

 

[Kitchen Utensil]

Yeah, so instead of making the gameplay less repetitive and the world more interesting, just cut the story in half. Makes sense.

 

[Prime Junta]

Yeah, so instead of making the gameplay less repetitive and the world more interesting, just cut the story in half. Makes sense.

Yeah, so instead of making the best gameplay, story, and world you can and letting the size fall where it may, just add bloat and grind until it's three times as big as it needs to be. Makes sense.

 

[Kitchen Utensil]

Witcher gameplay is shit and in dire need of improvement regardless of the story's length, imbecile.

 

[Deleted member 7219]

It's going to have shit gameplay and story padding, they're just going for the Call of Duty market (keep it short and simple) rather than the CRPG market (long and detailed).

 

[Prime Junta]

Witcher gameplay is shit and in dire need of improvement regardless of the story's length, imbecile.

It is, but it would have been bloated and too long for its own good even with improved gameplay.

 

[Quillon]

If Witcher 3 was twice as long I'd still have finished it at least twice. Optimal length is subjective, mostly depends on how much free time you have. Combat is shit/repetitive etc but just walking/trotting around in W3 is fun/relaxing/whatever...