46.
 
Re: Engagement Ring
Feb 13, 2024, 11:13
46.
Re: Engagement Ring Feb 13, 2024, 11:13
Feb 13, 2024, 11:13
 
Riahderymnmaddog wrote on Feb 12, 2024, 13:13:
GothicWizard wrote on Feb 11, 2024, 21:14:
Riahderymnmaddog wrote on Feb 11, 2024, 14:16:
Cyberpunk SUX0RS, blah, blah, blah... That's what they said

Mark my words, in two years' time Starfield is going to blow up... Fucking Todd already told you all to upgrade your shit.

2077 had a solid foundation of amazing writing, actors, characters, story, art direction and music. Most of its issues were technical, game mechanics. Very few people were complaining about the story, acting, atmosphere, music, art direction, GFX, animations, etc. With 2077 you could patch it into a great game as the foundations were solid. That isn't so with SF. SF is at its core a bad game, everything I stated as 2077 high points is, at best, mediocre in SF. You can't patch out the endless loading screens without redoing the entire engine. They are not going to re-write the characters and bring in the cast for a re-do. They are not going to patch in a whole new main story. You can not patch a bad game at its core into a great, or even good, game.

Like I said blah, blah blah.

a simple google search filtered with a date range of 2020 -2021 tells a very different story.

A lot of the criticism of Cyberpunk 2077 that isn't based on bugs or the console problems has pointed out that the plot, setting, and quests often feel incomplete or loosely stitched together

Cyberpunk 2077’s problems do not end with the technical and performance issues that CDPR is trying to patch out, nor do the game's problems end with the bad reputation it got after its original launch, which it may never be able to fully shake. Cyberpunk 2077’s problems lie at a fundamental level, which no amount of gameplay patches could fix.

Visually, the game is last-gen make no mistake, if you’re expecting to be blown away by the visuals, then I’m sorry to disappoint.

looking at the steam hardware survey in December 2020 we see the dual and quad core CPU's with GTX 1060 ruled the day, and CP2077 was poorly optimized.

Today six and eight core CPUs the the most common, and RTX 3060, and CP2077 has finely been optimized.

Loading screens, CP2077 has a loading screen when you fast travel, or enter a structure, where as Starfield has a loading screen when you enter a structure or fast travel...Same holds true for Skyrim and Fallout 4, not really understanding the issue, other then Starfield isn't No mans Sky.

From the first link;

"A lot of the criticism of Cyberpunk 2077 that isn't based on bugs or the console problems has pointed out that the plot, setting, and quests often feel incomplete or loosely stitched together. Combat and overall difficulty have also been criticized. These are issues that CDPR can address to some degree, either with patches or DLC. There's a lot more precedent for believing the company will fix the game, based on how titles like No Man's Sky, Final Fantasy XIV, Battlefront II, Destiny, and The Division 2 evolved after launch. One of the relatively new trends in gaming has been the emergence of titles that are not allowed to fail, and publishers willing to pour money into them until they've been rescued from the bottom of the bin."

I don't see how any of my core points disputed by this article. Where is it saying the writing, story acting, characters, music, etc is bad or massively disappointing by any significant group?

The second link aged like milk.

Third link some no name site I am not going to waste my time on, just shows me how bottom of the barrel you are scraping to be 'right'. Lastly you are confusing performance of visual fidelity vs visual fidelity itself. I suggest you grasp and understand the difference. They are two very different things.

My work is done here.
Date
Subject
Author
1.
Feb 9, 19:06Feb 9 19:06
3.
Feb 9, 20:28Feb 9 20:28
4.
Feb 9, 20:41Feb 9 20:41
5.
Feb 9, 20:49Feb 9 20:49
8.
Feb 9, 22:22Feb 9 22:22
9.
Feb 9, 22:31Feb 9 22:31
10.
Feb 9, 22:55Feb 9 22:55
11.
Feb 9, 22:59Feb 9 22:59
13.
Feb 9, 23:12Feb 9 23:12
15.
Feb 10, 09:39Feb 10 09:39
16.
Feb 10, 10:18Feb 10 10:18
17.
Feb 10, 10:46Feb 10 10:46
19.
Feb 10, 11:01Feb 10 11:01
20.
Feb 10, 11:40Feb 10 11:40
21.
Feb 10, 12:11Feb 10 12:11
22.
Feb 10, 12:37Feb 10 12:37
37.
Feb 11, 10:55Feb 11 10:55
       Re: Engagement Ring
38.
Feb 11, 11:30Feb 11 11:30
        Re: Engagement Ring
39.
Feb 11, 12:12Feb 11 12:12
         Re: Engagement Ring
40.
Feb 11, 12:43Feb 11 12:43
          Re: Engagement Ring
41.
Feb 11, 13:06Feb 11 13:06
           Re: Engagement Ring
42.
Feb 11, 13:27Feb 11 13:27
         Re: Engagement Ring
47.
Feb 14, 09:47Feb 14 09:47
        Re: Engagement Ring
23.
Feb 10, 13:07Feb 10 13:07
24.
Feb 10, 13:27Feb 10 13:27
       Re: Engagement Ring
26.
Feb 10, 15:52Feb 10 15:52
        Re: Engagement Ring
27.
Feb 10, 16:01Feb 10 16:01
         Re: Engagement Ring
28.
Feb 10, 16:52Feb 10 16:52
          Re: Engagement Ring
30.
Feb 10, 18:55Feb 10 18:55
         Re: Engagement Ring
18.
Feb 10, 10:54Feb 10 10:54
25.
Feb 10, 14:29Feb 10 14:29
29.
Feb 10, 17:47Feb 10 17:47
31.
Feb 10, 19:08Feb 10 19:08
32.
Feb 10, 19:41Feb 10 19:41
34.
Feb 10, 23:03Feb 10 23:03
2.
Feb 9, 20:06Feb 9 20:06
6.
Feb 9, 22:09Feb 9 22:09
7.
Feb 9, 22:11Feb 9 22:11
12.
Feb 9, 23:10Feb 9 23:10
14.
Feb 10, 05:24Feb 10 05:24
33.
Feb 10, 20:13Feb 10 20:13
35.
Feb 11, 01:34Feb 11 01:34
36.
Feb 11, 08:46Feb 11 08:46
43.
Feb 11, 14:16Feb 11 14:16
44.
Feb 11, 21:14Feb 11 21:14
45.
Feb 12, 13:13Feb 12 13:13
 46.
Feb 13, 11:13Feb 13 11:13
   Re: Engagement Ring