MadYarpen
Member
I had a similar impression. Personally I expect 70-80 hours.I thought they were talking about the main quest, since they are expanding the side quests.
I had a similar impression. Personally I expect 70-80 hours.I thought they were talking about the main quest, since they are expanding the side quests.
I mean its really kind of a hollow shell of what they promised 1 year ago. Lets see how much of the vertically exploration and entering of building is left. If you can enter most buildings with multiple floors it could still be "big".My only real worry is the game length, and size of the map, in paticular the city itself. That screen shot froma while ago, which showed the whole map size, it made the city look tiny. And with CDPR already saying the game is shorter than Witcher 3, well if the devs themselves are the ones saying it, expect the game to be considerably shorter.
I mean its really kind of a hollow shell of what they promised 1 year ago. Lets see how much of the vertically exploration and entering of building is left. If you can enter most buildings with multiple floors it could still be "big".
My only real worry is the game length, and size of the map, in paticular the city itself. That screen shot froma while ago, which showed the whole map size, it made the city look tiny. And with CDPR already saying the game is shorter than Witcher 3, well if the devs themselves are the ones saying it, expect the game to be considerably shorter.
the city looks huge though. yeah it's gonna look small when you look at the whole map. los santos looks small when you compare it to the rest of the GTA V map but the city is still impressive in scale when you're exploring it. here is a comparison between the size of GTA V map vs Cyberpunk. i've matched the roads to make it an accurate scale comparison:
now remember Night City is designed to be explored vertically. also if Cyberpunk has more than 5 accessible buildings then it will be better than GTA V lol.
they've said from the start the main campaign won't be as long as Witcher 3 which was ~50 hours. even if it was 30 hours it would still be about on par with games like Skyrim, Fallout 4, GTA V. witcher 3 took me about 90 hours so that's about 40 hours worth of side quests/contracts. if cyberpunk has a 30 hour campaign and 20 hours of side quests i'd be happy especially since they've said the game is designed for multiple playthroughs. i know i'm gonna be playing it at least 3 times to get all the life path content so 150 hours...shit i'm happy with that.
i also remember them marketing the expansions. hearts of stone had 10+ hours of content and Blood & Wine had 20+. i got about 20 hours out of HoS and 50 out of B&W.When they were making the Witcher 3 they were afraid it is to short....
So it is best to wait how it turns out
And even say... 40-45h main story plus 30-40 H of slide content is also perfect.i also remember them marketing the expansions. hearts of stone had 10+ hours of content and Blood & Wine had 20+. i got about 20 hours out of HoS and 50 out of B&W.
so if they say we're getting a 30 hour campaign then we'll probably get about 60 hours lol.
Geoff Keighley, the creator and host of The Game Awards show. This is the award that "matters" the most I'd say, so yeah, this is his rule, because it takes place in early December, so everything after November 15 is eligible for next year's GOTY.Who is Geoff and why does he decide these things?
Do you really think they'd go for anything other than max settings with all features enabled for their promotional footage?This screenshot has rtx features enabled right?
Finally got time to watch this.
Not much has changed except the graphics and scenes seem to be more polished (who knows what it's running on?). Ai looks brain dead, whether from afar or up close. Encounter design simply has not had much thought and time put into it. Passable if you're on blinders but not among the best. Gunplay is still wait and see (people will either like it or hate it from what I'm seeing). Melee still looks trash. A katana can only do so much to make it appear to look better. First person view melee is insanely hard to put off well (but that's what they bought into so...). You cut corners on animation work by going first-person instead of third person view but the result is uncanny valley gallore in first-person view.
People will overlook a lot of its faults for other things it does well... art design is top notch, world-building top notch. Story telling, voice acting, and story arcs.... that's a wait and see. Voice acting is iffy so far... Character models look very well detailed for the type of game it's but the animations leave a lot to be desired - trade-offs in time and resources are clearly visible. There is a reason Rockstar has like 2k people working on a game for 5+ years. Looks much better than A'Creed Valhalla trashiness tho... so there is that.
Glad to see you're excited for the game too! Which Lifepath you choosing?
I think it looks alright here, considering it's just incredibly difficult to make a good first person melee combat - the only decent effort I can recall is Dark Messiah, and that was 14 years ago.Why don't they make the camera move in melee combat? Now it hit me. It always looks like the character is standing still, only using arms. In every game I remember.
everytime i see new videos im more excited, it gives me that Akira/ghost in the shell vibes i cant wait
Would make 1st person games virtually unplayable. This is less of an issue in VR, assuming you don't suffer from motion sickness.Why don't they make the camera move in melee combat? Now it hit me. It always looks like the character is standing still, only using arms. In every game I remember.
I am excited but at the same time I don't like the gunplay and melee mechanics
They looked very rough. Hopefully they'll get it right at the end