Oooh. A response from Adam Badowski.
I can see arguing the top statement and maybe the bottom but the most the staff saying it’s not ready… when it was clearly not ready. Why argue that? I mean the game was released prematurely, not at all ready for last gen even. I am sure more than a few people said something about that.
It is difficult to match that refute with the video that claims leadership is taking responsibility.
Some of the points in that response–like the ones about language, or the non-linearity of development, make sense, but it dodges the main issues pretty handily. There is no way you can say with a straight face that the stuff people were shown that is not in the final game was cut as part of the normal creative process, or that it didn’t fit with some grand vision.
What’s bizarre is this sort of thing goes on just for internal purposes too. I remember weeks being cut out of actual dev time (and a sorta mini-crunch to boot) to throw together some near-total bullshit ‘vertical slice’ for HQ that bore zero resemblance to the actual state of the game. At least it got the suits to talk about something other than their secretaries’ arses for an hour, I guess.
It was a E3 demo, from a game that at that moment didn’t even have a release date, at this point I consider them always fake. So I knew it.
What I didn’t know was if the shown features real status was 0%, 20%, 50%, etc.
RPS with a rare reasonable take.
Yeah, that “fake” claim irked me too. The demo ran in-engine, with game assets, and was played in realtime by real person when demoed. And had big “work in progress” sticker. Some of its aspects were of course scripted and not implemented system-wise (wallrunning most obviously, which CDP then decided not to bother with for the full game) but that does not mean the demo is “fake”. At least not how I understand the word.
And people complaining that time was spent making that demo that could have been put into the game - sometimes it is useful for developers themselves to have a fairly polished slice of the game finished to better see the vision of the intended result. I know Warhorse guys, when asked if making their KCD backer alphas was a waste of time, usually answered “no, because it was useful for us too, even if it took extra time”.
There’s a difference between a vertical slice demo running in-engine with game assets that represents a selection of gameplay, and one that’s more “faked” (for want of a better word) and aspirational. I think the demo for Cyberpunk 2077 falls clearly in the latter. A lot of studios have done it, so it’s not like CDPR did something egregiously bad, but they did set up a lot of expectations with that demo that they were unable to deliver.
Exactly. A demo like that is fine, as long as you are clear to people that it’s aspirational, that you are making no guarantees, and most importantly if as you move through the project you adjust your marketing to reflect the realistic progress of the game.
Of course, that would require you to change your plans in a measured and intentional way, adjusting your design to fit the new parameters and keeping things coherent and cohesive. Hacking off stuff in a desperate bid to make it work on low-spec platforms, punting systems that you can’t get up to speed in time, and then hastily patching over the resulting gaping holes with last minute wallpaper isn’t going to cut it.
Ha ha, people believed stuff they saw at an E3!
Hm…I disagree. There are things in the demo that are not in the final game, yes - wheelchair NPC, customized advertisments, third person cutscenes, one night stand in the apartment, wallrunning, jackie lifting up a car for cover - but most of this stuff (apart from wallrunning) is fairly cosmetic, and lack of third person just a design choice. The core of the demo - most of the gameplay, graphics, narrative - is kept in the final game (and looks graphically significantly better as well). The biggest thing that was dropped feature-wise is the wallrunning I think…they clearly just scripted that for the demo and when time came to actually implement the system for the whole city, they decided the opportunity cost was too big.
What was more fucked in the demo was Borys’s overblown hype narration, if anything. Too many big claims and then not enough time to make those a reality.
Some of the demo looks higher quality animation and models that are rendered in the launch title. Some parts look like pre rendered footage—like all of the Anthem trailer.
I think the worst part of the demo is indeed the narration, which pushed the demo far beyond what it was able to actually show. I’m not quite as charitable as @Paul_cze, maybe, but the demo was the least of their issues. It was the follow up and thee refusal to face reality publicly in the years between the demo and release that bit them in the ass IMO.
Can you specify which parts? I found none of it to look pre-rendered or fake, graphically. If anything the final game looks graphically better
Ya, I suspect if you were able to run with RT on, it may have been beyond what was available in 2018, which is just about when the RTX cards started getting released.
I’m not the following the news anymore of the game, but they still have not released any update in January, right? I guessed, wrongly, that would come sooner rather than later.
Same with the free dlc, I could swear TW3 dlc came just one or two weeks later after release, clearly it isn’t the case here. Then again, it’s clear this game’s development hasn’t been like TW3 development.
Yes, no update in January yet. Unless you count the release of the 1.0.6 Hotfix on Stadia.
Marcin said one update should come within next 10 days, so they have 5 days to go. Bigger one in february though.
DLCs have indeed been postponed. I bet they might even have some ready to go, but it would just be more bad PR to release DLC (even free) before more patches.
Not to mention that if they make big changes in the fixes/patches, that DLC could break.