No, it was pretty bad. I was the moron that bought it for PS4. It performed EXTREMELY bad. Refunded immediately.
Marketing machine hyped this game up beyond belief and i bought into it.
I came back to it on PC and after all of it's patches up to the path tracing update and it works much better now. Played through the story and it's pretty good but we'll see if the phantom liberty expansion ACTUALLY revamps what they say it will.
Mixed feelings. I bought it for the PS4 (base!) and returned it unopened on launch day after seeing people complain about it. But I also got it on Stadia (with a free controller) where it did run well, I played to the end, and again. It wasn't a Witcher 3, but I had a lot of fun, great vibes in Night City.
Ehh, I'd say they are maybe 20% right about that one, the gaming community just piled on top of it like it was the most irredeemable pile of trash ever.
The thing is the other 80% of that story is them telling upfront lies about the game, them intentionally hiding that it was literally unplayable on consoles, and even now years after its launch after numerous updates and bugfixes the game is still just a shadow of what it could have been.
It's a fun good game but the thing I think about most while playing it is usually about missed potential, "damn this could have been so much better". Maybe Phantom Liberty and the free update improves this, I really hope it does, but the game is a mess of gameplay mechanics, terrible progression loops and empty open world.
the gaming community just piled on top of it like it was the most irredeemable pile of trash ever
The past gen versions were so bad that they got pulled from digital storefronts. Literally unplayable. They knew this, as evidenced by not a single reviewer getting an advance copy for those systems. They knew and they happily took consumer's money.
well he's not 100 wrong. But also, they are 100% to blame themselves for that. They took advantage of the goodwill they earned with Witcher 3 and went out of their way to hide the last get versions of the game because they knew it sucked.
I definitely followed all of the marketing and was expecting about 3 or 4 more skill trees, more meaningful choices in side quests, and generally a more living world. Plus like, 20 hours of gameplay that got cut out and turned into a cutscene.
hmmm it's almost as if releasing an incomplete/broken game is bad for business/reputation and seems to cause a tough row to hoe to gain back gamer's trust... weird.
I'd heard that they're redoing the first one. Hopefully that's true, because I was never able to get it to run well on my PC. And when Witcher 2 came out, it was XBox and PC, and I'd switched to PS. :/
Patently false, the launch of CP2077 was horrendous
And frankly, it's not even the worst part (although releasing a AAA game with millions of USD of budget in that state should be an embarrasment), the worst was the way they shamefully kept hyping a game they must have known was still broken beyond belief
Like, props to them for putting the work to make the game playable at a normal level, but that should have been the case at launch, not a year later
It's also become a notable example of a trend a lot of AAA games follow, bigger and bigger budget, scope and team that keep getting mismanaged and release the games unfinished to stick to a schedule made for the shareholder's benefits, and not for the customer's
At the end of the day, this is PR gaslighting to prepare the launch of additional premium content
Add comment