46
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 27 Feb 2025
46 points (100.0% liked)
Patient Gamers
18149 readers
37 users here now
A gaming community free from the hype and oversaturation of current releases, catering to gamers who wait at least 12 months after release to play a game. Whether it's price, waiting for bugs/issues to be patched, DLC to be released, don't meet the system requirements, or just haven't had the time to keep up with the latest releases.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Yeah most likely. That's a good point you're making. But even then, it wasn't that successful or talked-about at the time. When I first started playing it I was wondering why it wasn't a bigger hit, but after finishing it I think I get it. So maybe even playing it around release wouldn't have changed much? I will say the pacing and length was pretty spot on. The story had a brisk pace and for once for an open world game it didn't feel too long (bearing in mind I only completed maybe half of the optional open world stuff).
It also needs to be said that it is a remarkably good looking game for being 13 years old and made for the PS3. Sure, I played the Definitive Edition and with DLDSR 1.78x on a 1440p HDR monitor with RTX HDR enabled, but still. It looks really good for its age. It's especially impressive how crowded the streets are on the max setting.
It's funny you say the open world felt samey, because one of my main takeaways after playing this game was "man, CDPR really hit it out of the park with architecture and level design for Cyberpunk 2077". Hong Kong looked great and crowded- particularly at night like you said - but it didn't have nearly the same distinctly different districts with identifiable character as you'd find in Night City.
The melee combat only got somewhat interesting towards the end of the game when there were some enemies that could resist your counters, otherwise it was mostly a case of waiting for someone to flash red and pressing Y. There are some interesting ideas with the techniques you can unlock and the combos, but most of it felt like window dressing more than necessary tools. The only thing you need besides counters is the upgrade that lets you disarm enemies carrying melee weapons.
This is a great example of the game design sickness Ubisoft inflicted upon the world with the success of the Assassin's Creed franchise. It's released right in the window where that was all the rage, and this is absolutely peak Ubisoft Open World^TM. But that trend held for far too long - I've leveled that criticism against even titles as recent as Ghost of Tsushima.
The music selection was good, but I kind of wish the radio selection was deeper and not as wide. I would have preferred somewhat fewer channels but with a bigger selection of songs on each. I also missed more humour and talk show style radio. The driving did feel pretty good and the races were fun, although the AI was so atrocious at driving there was hardly a challenge. But throwing the cars into corners with handbrake turns and counter steering was enjoyable and I liked how the different cars had wildly different characteristics.
How you will like it will depend on what you expected of it, I think. Some people wanted a completely free RPG where you could be whoever you wanted and play in an open world as dynamic as RDR2 - the game isn't that. Much like the Witcher 3 you're playing as a specific character and you can only choose small variations in how that character acts. But V will always be V. The open world is also much less dynamic than people wanted, but that can be said about Witcher 3 as well so I don't know what people were expecting. CDPR aren't Rockstar.
There are also some fundamental problems with the game that are too big to be fixable with patches. I'm talking stuff like reactivity to decisions, pacing for parts of the main quest and how well (or rather poorly) the story they wanted to tell meshes with an open world game.
That being said I think the game is now in the best state it can be for what it is, and that state is still a pretty damn good game. I really enjoyed the story, I thought it had some great characters, and the revamped post 2.0 gameplay and skill tree feel good. It has great writing and voice acting, Night City is beautifully designed and art direction in general is great. I found the game really immersive and enjoyable, and would definitely recommend it. Especially if you can get it on sale.
It also looks phenomenal and if you have a good PC that can play it maxed out (including Path Tracing) it's one of the prettiest games out there. Look for the Ultra+ mod for further optimization and visual oomph.
I had to physically force myself to finish Ghost of Tsushima and during the last 25% or so of it I was actively resenting it. In my opinion, it is the single most overrated game of all time. That doesn't mean it's a bad game - I would give it a 7.5/10 - but the delta between what I think of it and the general opinion of it is the biggest. It is patently not the "game of a generation" or some such shit. It's way too long, the writing and voice acting is way too dour, overly serious and monotone and the quest design is way too poor. Combine this with a standard Ubisoft Open World^TM and I don't know what people are seeing. The combat is solid, but not enough to carry it for 60 hours. The game is stunning though and immaculately optimised, I'll give it that. Ran like a dream on my fat old first gen PS4 (in stark contrast to the multiple minute loading screens of Witcher 3).
It's on my extensive backlog. I played 2033 and Last Light last year. Loved the first game, the second not so much. I've heard only good things about Exodus though so I'm looking forward to it. It's a candidate for my next game, but I'm not sure I'm feeling it quite yet. Otherwise I've got Deus Ex: Mankind Divided, BioShock: Infinite and Skald: Against the Black Priory in the immediate pipeline. Oh, and the entire Yakuza franchise, probably starting with Kiwami?
I've read some things about Mankind Divided, mainly critiquing the first hour or so and the abrupt ending, including an unsatisfying ending. So if those are the flaws I'm braced for them. Otherwise I've heard pretty good things. It's actually installed already and quite likely my next game, though I saw Skald is on sale now so it's making a late charge.
Bioshock Infinite sounds like what I'd expected. But I wouldn't call either Bioshock 1 or 2 an imsim? They're just tight shooters with some occasionally great writing (mostly in the first one) and some stellar world building.
I could do with some advice about Yakuza though. I've heard three suggestions: start with 0, start with Kiwami or start with the original Yakuza (and play them in release order). It seems to me Kiwami is a solid middle ground compromise as a first game, but I am aware it will lead to a downgrade in quality between Kiwami 2 and Yakuza 3. On the other hand, starting with the original Yakuza and playing in release order is most "correct", and probably the best experience if I do end up loving the series - but I'm worried the original Yakuza will feel old and clunky and put me off the series as a whole.
Are the two DLCs not included and integrated into Mankind Divided? That's a shame. The DLC for Human Revolution was seamless and maybe the best part of the game (excluding the "you lose all your gear and skills" gimmick that I'm quite fed up with). It's a shame about the ending of MD though, I hear the game feels like basically 2/3 of a great game and then just ends in a cliffhanger, which hurts knowing it never got continued.
Sounds fine for Infinite. I loved Bioshock one, and I think it's one of the best games of all time. Bioshock 2 is like an 8/10, it's essentially just "more Bioshock" but with a worse story. I'd rather they try something different with Infinite than another runback.
Yeah I suspected as much for the old games. Kiwami -> Kiwami 2 -> 3 -> 4 -> 5 -> 0 -> 6 is what I was planning on doing, and so it seems I was on the right track. I have heard there is technically some extra content in Kiwami 1&2 you'd only appreciate if you'd already played some of the other games, but I'm not sure it's worth hunting down and suffering through the original Yakuza 1&2 for those tidbits. Plus it seems awkward to fit in progression wise since you're replaying the story of 1 and 2... Do you play 1 -> 2 -> 3 -> 4 -> 5 -> 0 -> 6 -> Kiwami -> Kiwami 2 then? Or save 6 for last? And it seems like a lot of effort for marginal gains.