For Cyberpunk 2077, I still say that the game had a massive shift once they got Keanu on board and they threw out the old plot and grafted him in, then wrote around it with what they could salvage. Which is why it feels so disjointed. I don't expect every single loose end to tie up. But there's so much what if, and one off fully voiced characters for single missions that it makes me wonder what else they had in store.
Because what they said they'd do, and what eventually made it into the final game are two different things.
What I don't understand is why the workflow for these games isn't:
• Make intro versions A, B, and C
• Make endings 1, 2, and 3
• Everything else
You've got unique intros that each have their own areas and characters, so dev time required. Why not do the same for n different, slightly generic endings? The writers can dial them in as you go, but have most of the dev in the can. That way, if you run out of steam, you can cut the "Collectible 27d" chain instead of the fucking ending of your game.
That said, I saw a funny argument that the endings that are in there map to each origin. You have the run-away end, which is for the outlander origin. You have the secret end, for the gutterpunk origin. And you have the end where you get merked, because that's how it goes for corpos who try to rise above their station.
I don't understand how they're going to make the DLC consistent and I suspect they're going to shoehorn it in before the actual ending of the base game which is going to ruin the story even more.
Based on the previews I've seen, that's exactly it. The DLC is a new area and storyline, that can be accessed in the (as I understand, haven't played CP2077 much at all yet) first third of the game. What really weird me out is, it has to do with the NUSA president, which seems to cause some serious issues because, well, being BFFs (or however it works out) with the fucking president seems like it should have some serious game-changing effects.
I don't know enough to write it off or anything, but it seems a weird decision to throw such impactful characters into the story, and at odds with the struggling to survive feel of the game. It will be hard to do in a way that's not immersion breaking, if you're often left wondering "well, couldn't I just call up the president and ask for help with this problem?"
Other than that, some of the gameplay changes seem cool, and I am excited. Although mostly that's because I did end up ordering new computer parts, and need something high-end and shiny to play on the new machine after I build it. So even if they don't end up being the best, I am excited to play things like Starfield and Cyberpunk 2077. I got Starfield for free with the components, so that's nice.
As in actually finishing core gameplay functionality like Police that should have been in the game from the beginning? Yeah for sure. Also the finishing moves and car combat.
I really don't know who these stories actually appeal to? Who likes this?
I like the story. It's not as good as Edgerunners but I think it's one of the major strengths of the game, considering all the other flaws. The story is very much tied to the character personalities though. If you don't like any of the characters, you won't like the story. Jackie is probably the most likeable so I can understand why people were pissed off they threw his story away for Keanu.
Personal opinion, but I didn't like Jackie that much. Felt too much like that cliche'd "your bro, your bro-y bro who is your bro" character that always exists in a game to get killed to make you "feel" things. If they hadn't fucking montage'd over all your exploits and relationship building, I might have had the time to like him more, but they jump you straight from strangers to a single short mission and then the big one.
Keanu was at least interesting because you spent the time with him, got to know him, and see him change in real time to be less of a shithead.
Its funny, because CoD can manage it. Shepherd killing a bunch of your guys at the end of that one game genuinely worked and made people feel emotion enough to still reference it like 10 games later. The original MW trilogy had actually pretty good writing overall.
They just fell for the yearly release, multiplayer focus meme and the single players became an afterthought or marketing bullet point.
They should have killed Vee off permanently and ended the 'main' story there and come up with some kind of new main character than can explore the Cyberpunk world without being constantly being referenced as terminally ill yet magically able to wall jump and fight with arm blade attachments.
That's what I would have done if I was making this game. And I wouldn't make it an expansion pack, it'd be a standalone game that you could buy and play without any of Cyberpunk 2077's baggage (or costs). 'Cause I'm not interested in playing as this loser who fucked up early in his career, is doomed to die, and is ultimately just there to be a glorified vehicle for Keanu Reeves playing as Keanu Reeves.
Nothing you really do in the game matters. FC5 honestly felt like two/three very different games fighting for dominance and primacy in the story.
Game 1: crazy hippie cultists have taken over Small Town USA, eliminate them with extreme prejudice and return things to normal (including a rodeo/barbecue).
Game 2: totally not dime store Branch Davidians/Southern Pentecostal expys take over progressive town and try to make it all huwyte. Return sacred PROGRESS to the area.
Game 3: These people use drugs to see the truth, maaaaaan! They're right! They're just right, maaaan! Real leaders build bridges, not walls! Anyone who buys tradition and traditional ways is old and stupid!
For Cyberpunk 2077, I still say that the game had a massive shift once they got Keanu on board and they threw out the old plot and grafted him in, then wrote around it with what they could salvage. Which is why it feels so disjointed. I don't expect every single loose end to tie up. But there's so much what if, and one off fully voiced characters for single missions that it makes me wonder what else they had in store.
Because what they said they'd do, and what eventually made it into the final game are two different things.
What I don't understand is why the workflow for these games isn't:
• Make intro versions A, B, and C
• Make endings 1, 2, and 3
• Everything else
You've got unique intros that each have their own areas and characters, so dev time required. Why not do the same for n different, slightly generic endings? The writers can dial them in as you go, but have most of the dev in the can. That way, if you run out of steam, you can cut the "Collectible 27d" chain instead of the fucking ending of your game.
That said, I saw a funny argument that the endings that are in there map to each origin. You have the run-away end, which is for the outlander origin. You have the secret end, for the gutterpunk origin. And you have the end where you get merked, because that's how it goes for corpos who try to rise above their station.
Based on the previews I've seen, that's exactly it. The DLC is a new area and storyline, that can be accessed in the (as I understand, haven't played CP2077 much at all yet) first third of the game. What really weird me out is, it has to do with the NUSA president, which seems to cause some serious issues because, well, being BFFs (or however it works out) with the fucking president seems like it should have some serious game-changing effects.
I don't know enough to write it off or anything, but it seems a weird decision to throw such impactful characters into the story, and at odds with the struggling to survive feel of the game. It will be hard to do in a way that's not immersion breaking, if you're often left wondering "well, couldn't I just call up the president and ask for help with this problem?"
Other than that, some of the gameplay changes seem cool, and I am excited. Although mostly that's because I did end up ordering new computer parts, and need something high-end and shiny to play on the new machine after I build it. So even if they don't end up being the best, I am excited to play things like Starfield and Cyberpunk 2077. I got Starfield for free with the components, so that's nice.
As in actually finishing core gameplay functionality like Police that should have been in the game from the beginning? Yeah for sure. Also the finishing moves and car combat.
Yup, and perk changes and additions, and the new mission type or whatever.
I like the story. It's not as good as Edgerunners but I think it's one of the major strengths of the game, considering all the other flaws. The story is very much tied to the character personalities though. If you don't like any of the characters, you won't like the story. Jackie is probably the most likeable so I can understand why people were pissed off they threw his story away for Keanu.
Personal opinion, but I didn't like Jackie that much. Felt too much like that cliche'd "your bro, your bro-y bro who is your bro" character that always exists in a game to get killed to make you "feel" things. If they hadn't fucking montage'd over all your exploits and relationship building, I might have had the time to like him more, but they jump you straight from strangers to a single short mission and then the big one.
Keanu was at least interesting because you spent the time with him, got to know him, and see him change in real time to be less of a shithead.
Its funny, because CoD can manage it. Shepherd killing a bunch of your guys at the end of that one game genuinely worked and made people feel emotion enough to still reference it like 10 games later. The original MW trilogy had actually pretty good writing overall.
They just fell for the yearly release, multiplayer focus meme and the single players became an afterthought or marketing bullet point.
That's what I would have done if I was making this game. And I wouldn't make it an expansion pack, it'd be a standalone game that you could buy and play without any of Cyberpunk 2077's baggage (or costs). 'Cause I'm not interested in playing as this loser who fucked up early in his career, is doomed to die, and is ultimately just there to be a glorified vehicle for Keanu Reeves playing as Keanu Reeves.
V is "terminally ill" in the sense that his brain is being hijacked, when that's not actively happening he's completely fine.
Nothing you really do in the game matters. FC5 honestly felt like two/three very different games fighting for dominance and primacy in the story.
Game 1: crazy hippie cultists have taken over Small Town USA, eliminate them with extreme prejudice and return things to normal (including a rodeo/barbecue).
Game 2: totally not dime store Branch Davidians/Southern Pentecostal expys take over progressive town and try to make it all huwyte. Return sacred PROGRESS to the area.
Game 3: These people use drugs to see the truth, maaaaaan! They're right! They're just right, maaaan! Real leaders build bridges, not walls! Anyone who buys tradition and traditional ways is old and stupid!