IDK, honestly. one of my biggest takeaways from cp2077 is it felt like they wanted to do a more guided story in an open world and struggled with the custom character aspect. like how the origins were all basically meaningless after the first 10 minutes.
the frustrating part of cyberpunk was feeling railroaded into a specific character with specific attitudes and ideas. really, they were just doing what they know and what they’re good at creating a character driven narrative based on existing characters. I’m happy to see them go back to that because i think they’re just better at it.
They didn’t had to do the origins, but I think it’s more a result of them generally struggling with the development. The game has shortcomings everywhere, especially in its story. The whole intro with Jackie is just meh and you’re supposed to like him so that it is this big traumatic hit when he dies but I just did not care. Then they introduce this moronic unlikable character of Silverhand which guides you through the whole game in some inconsistent ways, and I could not care less about this asshole, especially since his character started to rub off on V.
To think they only did this because Keanu Reeves suggested them that the character should have a bigger role and that the original story apparently looked very different… Not even starting on the last mission which I could not even bother doing because I already knew V finds an end there and you can then only load a previous save to keep playing the open world. So of course, not caring about the story, I did not care about that either.
Obviously I could not be bothered to buy the paid DLC that wasn’t supposed to exist either.
I did like having my own character creation though. I did like having the ability to roam an open world and buy things. But I would’ve preferred a game with less of an idiotic story, hell, drop the story and instead work on more open world content and features instead. Be a little more sandboxy and open ended instead of having me play the hero of my own story.
As for the Witcher… Don’t care. I never got into it. Got through most of the first game but the choices & character drama annoyed me and I could not get into Geralt either. Combat, monsters and story felt blegh so I just dropped it. Could not be arsed to pick it up again.
oh man, to judge the entire Witcher series on the first one is intense. they’re all very very different games. you should try the third one on its own.
it’s like saying you don’t like mmos because you didn’t like classic RuneScape in the 90s. or like saying you don’t like rpgs because text based adventures weren’t your thing. not exactly representative.
hmm, more like jumping into a new series in a franchise that rebooted a decade later. like saying you can’t possibly like the dark knight because the 90s Batman movies were bad. they’re completely different.
the Witcher franchise is based on books. the games happen chronologically after the books. the first two games don’t really follow the book story. the third one decided to pick up the book story again and can be approached on its own. the first game was the first thing they ever made as a tiny Indy studio. the writing was bad and the gameplay was completely different. it’s so old that it’s from before 3d movement was standardized in games. they learned a lot over time.
you’re not being fair by judging the later games off of the first.
The first witcher game is classic eurojank. It took me 4 false starts to get through it. Witcher 2 was better and so was 3. Though 3 really laid the open world junk on thick and could’ve benefited from a bit of linearity.
Thought it was a good opportunity to switch to a custom protagonist. Oh well.
That was my hope as well, especially after CP2077.
IDK, honestly. one of my biggest takeaways from cp2077 is it felt like they wanted to do a more guided story in an open world and struggled with the custom character aspect. like how the origins were all basically meaningless after the first 10 minutes.
the frustrating part of cyberpunk was feeling railroaded into a specific character with specific attitudes and ideas. really, they were just doing what they know and what they’re good at creating a character driven narrative based on existing characters. I’m happy to see them go back to that because i think they’re just better at it.
They didn’t had to do the origins, but I think it’s more a result of them generally struggling with the development. The game has shortcomings everywhere, especially in its story. The whole intro with Jackie is just meh and you’re supposed to like him so that it is this big traumatic hit when he dies but I just did not care. Then they introduce this moronic unlikable character of Silverhand which guides you through the whole game in some inconsistent ways, and I could not care less about this asshole, especially since his character started to rub off on V. To think they only did this because Keanu Reeves suggested them that the character should have a bigger role and that the original story apparently looked very different… Not even starting on the last mission which I could not even bother doing because I already knew V finds an end there and you can then only load a previous save to keep playing the open world. So of course, not caring about the story, I did not care about that either.
Obviously I could not be bothered to buy the paid DLC that wasn’t supposed to exist either.
I did like having my own character creation though. I did like having the ability to roam an open world and buy things. But I would’ve preferred a game with less of an idiotic story, hell, drop the story and instead work on more open world content and features instead. Be a little more sandboxy and open ended instead of having me play the hero of my own story.
As for the Witcher… Don’t care. I never got into it. Got through most of the first game but the choices & character drama annoyed me and I could not get into Geralt either. Combat, monsters and story felt blegh so I just dropped it. Could not be arsed to pick it up again.
oh man, to judge the entire Witcher series on the first one is intense. they’re all very very different games. you should try the third one on its own.
it’s like saying you don’t like mmos because you didn’t like classic RuneScape in the 90s. or like saying you don’t like rpgs because text based adventures weren’t your thing. not exactly representative.
Your analogy makes no sense. We’re talking about the same franchise & character here. It’s like jumping into the middle of an ongoing TV show.
hmm, more like jumping into a new series in a franchise that rebooted a decade later. like saying you can’t possibly like the dark knight because the 90s Batman movies were bad. they’re completely different.
the Witcher franchise is based on books. the games happen chronologically after the books. the first two games don’t really follow the book story. the third one decided to pick up the book story again and can be approached on its own. the first game was the first thing they ever made as a tiny Indy studio. the writing was bad and the gameplay was completely different. it’s so old that it’s from before 3d movement was standardized in games. they learned a lot over time.
you’re not being fair by judging the later games off of the first.
The first witcher game is classic eurojank. It took me 4 false starts to get through it. Witcher 2 was better and so was 3. Though 3 really laid the open world junk on thick and could’ve benefited from a bit of linearity.