Maybe if we're lucky the game will use Vulkan and run on the hardware you already own.
I fear heavy system specification ahead, we may have to upgrade our rigs as the game seems graphics intensive.
Can you please share link with me?Speaking of music there is one of the tracks supposedly used in the game on YouTube and it’s pretty good
Based on my Witcher 3 experience, Cyberpunk 2077 might be a day 1 buy for me. I almost never buy full priced games but I feel CDPR has earned my support.
Maybe if we're lucky the game will use Vulkan and run on the hardware you already own.
Until we get a new console generation, running on current hardware is probably a safe bet.
I’m not certain we will. There will probably just end up being continuous iterations of the current ecosystem with increased performance and features each time. That’s what Microsoft seems to want to do.
First person? Weeeaaaak
I’m not certain we will. There will probably just end up being continuous iterations of the current ecosystem with increased performance and features each time. That’s what Microsoft seems to want to do.
Holy wall of text. I just prefer to see my character in RPGs, and when there's melee combat 3rd person is always better and more fluid.
I don't know. I think that is going to quickly become unsustainable. The Xbox One was released in 2013. So, it is already 5 year old hardware (and it was not really the best hardware at the time of release). How do they manage when the new games are all but unplayable on that original hardware? It is going to be a marketing nightmare. We are probably only a generation away from that already. No, at some point it is just easier to come out with a whole new console and tell owners of the old hardware to upgrade or miss out.
I'm reading now that there's apparently a 15 minutes-or-so playable demo for journalists / reviewers / whatever. I've read the one from PC Gamer. The complete irony is that they are allowed to describe everything they've seen and played from that demo (so, no "NDA" going on about it). Not only that, there seems to have been no major flaws or bugs reported and the guys who played it seem to have a generally positive impression (so far).
But the public is... not seeing that? Why? I don't get it. If it looks good, if it plays well, if there's no major bugs and there's no NDA... What. Is. The. Damn. Point in showing it "behind closed doors" so to speak. Anyway man... I think I need to stop thinking about this game simply until it just comes out and I see streams of it on Twitch. Looks like an event like E3 is not enough to see gameplay for upcoming games anymore. We're apparently supposed to be content with CGI trailers and Logo Reveals.
I've just read about that, too.
I'm absolutely struggling right now, in trying to understand their decision. I absolutely love the FPS genre, in general. However, not all types of games "fit", given specific conditions and context. If we consider that 'normal' gameplay (and combat) in Cyberpunk will remain in FPS, but cut-scenes will (supposedly) switch to Third Person, and it all happens seamlessly in-engine... it should mean that there's an actually-completed model of both male and female characters we'll have the choice to play as (indeed, there's apparently NO "character creator" per se; it's two fixed characters and that's it). So... then why not just giving the OPTION to stay Third Person or in FPS mode; Bethesda games-style, for example? Why 'forcing' the FPS view outside of cut-scenes? Additionally, not going with Third Person MIGHT have been related to complexity of animating the character (but that would be a very poor excuse after seeing what they've done with animations with both Witcher 2 and 3, especially 3 of course). And maybe it had something to do with a lot of technical reasons too, including gameplay-related mechanics.
Yeah, and more on that (gameplay mechanics), to think about perhaps; the thing is, it's not Witcher. It's not Fantasy. In Cyberpunk you don't cast spells and don't throw magic fire balls at people. In Third Person it's usually great to see that stuff AND seeing your character doing it as well, but let's be real here... a FPS Witcher would definitely not work. In Witcher we NEED to see our character in Third Person to better judge distances, physical approach, awareness of environment and surrounding hazards or obstacles for proper combat (ironically enough, the combat in Witcher 3, while being the best of the series, is not exactly what I'd call something amazing per se... but that's probably just very subjective). However, I KNOW... I know people... there has been (good and/or "working") examples in gaming of FPSes "with spells" and fantasy (Bioshock, Dark Messiah, Hexen and a couple of others), as well as ones with Third Person and sci-fi (Mass Effect, for instance).
Now, overall, I'm trying to understand here. There's dozens of gameplay concepts that collide in my mind right now each trying to prove or disprove the viability of going FPS in a game like Cyberpunk; it's just a total mess to think about. I DO see some good reasons, but I'm also annoyingly irritated at the idea that I wouldn't be able to see my character animate as I play. I don't exactly just want to play in 'tank mode' in a beautifully-rendered Cyberpunk city as I explore.
1) Ok, let's stop a moment and let's think: what WOULD be the main reason(s) as to why I'd want to play in Third Person for Cyberpunk? I don't speak for everyone, but I'll speak for myself: Character Customizations, Animations. And the main one (for me), namely IMMERSION. Because... oh, well because it's a ROLE-Playing-Game. Maybe it has something to do with that, who knows. Maybe I'm just imagining things. It's exactly like trying to imagine myself playing The Witcher 3 in FPS mode, and trying to immerse myself in any one of those villages I come across. Would that work? Errrr.... hummm... maaaaaybe? On a scale of 1 to 10 (10 being total immersion enough that a sneezing NPC would give me a jump scare) I would probably go with something like a 4 or 5. But with Cyberpunk (just like it was the case in Witcher 3) I would definitely imagine seeing my character in 3rd person view for the aesthetics, especially of course if the game is going to push hardware to upper limits whenever it comes out.
2) However, on the other hand, I'm trying to think of any reason(s) as to why I would want to STAY in First Person view all the time (well, excluding cut-scenes). I actually cannot think of any viable reason, to be honest. I mean... c'mon. It's supposed to be an RPG, not a DOOM-esque shooter. I DO love me some great FPS shooters, obviously. But "FPS RPGs" aren't exactly the ones I like the most, let's just say. But, with this said, even though it's supposed to be "an RPG" game... what if... WHAT IF... Cyberpunk 2077 really turns out to be a 'typical shooter' in combat moments? I mean SURE, obviously, there's going to be quests, NPCs and a campaign, etc. But really yeah, let's stop here and imagine what if it was the case? That Cyberpunk's combat wouldn't be that different than say... Mass Effect Andromeda's? Now, in THAT hypothetical case, sure... JUST going with FPS mode would be fine (because in this example the irony is that Andromeda did NOT "need" to be in Third Person for combat, it's NOT 'RPG-heavy' to the extent that a FPS mode in that game would not have worked; quite on the contrary).
In the end, however, I think it all depends on the execution. Yeah, FPS view remains FPS regardless of how you "execute it". But if the game's RPG elements are not very complex, or 'heavy' and if the game really does turn out to be more 'arcade'ish' in its approach on combat then I suppose - ultimately - that we wouldn't have needed Third Person for it, after all.
At the moment I more disappointed by the decision to apparently "force" FPS. But the BIG problem is not that there IS first-person-view, but that it is not an OPTION. If a dinosaur of an engine like GameBryo (oh, excuse me I mean... "Creation Engine") and a developer like Bethesda could give me the option to play in both FPS or 3rd Person since Morrowind (even if this example is quite archaic by today's standards), then why is a developer like CDPR - whom are none others than the ones who gave us one of the greatest video game ever made - can't do it for Cyberpunk? If it's truly a decision that has NOTHING to do with "engine limitations" or complexity in animating characters or making 3D models or costumes, and it was purely decided to go with FPS as the main point of view "Just Because We Preferred It Like That" then DO count me extremely disappointed in them. If, however, there really were a lot of technicalities that most of us wouldn't understand behind their decision then ok... I can live with that; and if the gameplay does happen to be fun anyway then sure, I'll buy it.
But I have actually changed my mind on one thing. Now that it's not Third Person I'll have to wait for a lot of gameplay videos to make up my mind. I'll have to see the combat plenty of times to make sure that going with FPS in the end really did make sense. However, that means that I'll probably not buy it on Day One anymore, and might have to wait for it to be on sale at some point. This is a VERY unexpected turn of events for me concerning this game. It comes out of the blue (for me, anyway; if it was hinted at before that Cyberpunk would be a FPS game then I just missed that "information" whenever it came out). This is akin to Nintendo announcing a new Zelda game that would be exclusively played in FPS, everyone would go "WTF!?", well that's how I feel like right now about this. I just can't understand why, but the gameplay itself might 'reveal' more about it.
Probably because there would be lines 5 hours long just to play 10minutes.
Also I think First Person for anything gun related is 1000% better than third person.
Well, Mass Effect didn't really suffer from being 3rd person/OTS.
Sure it did. Every 3rd person shooter is worse than it would have been to play in first person.