They ought to consider recruiting a few skilled individuals from indie studios instead of overestimating the potential of those who have been let go, who rely on recycled ideas...

I didn't follow the hype behind Cyberpunk.

I bought the game, on PC, on release night, started playing it and was blown away.

I had very few bugs (mostly T-posing characters) and I played through it twice in a row.

The lack of censorship and the graphics on my Core i7 5960x/ 3090/32 GB DDR4/ SSD machine were fantastic - probably the greatest I'd ever scene up till that point.

Hopefully they'll take more time to properly finish the sequel and release it in proper working condition.

DenverThey ought to consider recruiting a few skilled individuals from indie studios instead of overestimating the potential of those who have been let go, who rely on recycled ideas...

When you work at that level, it's not necessarily "being let go" rather than looking for the next challenge elsewhere. Some people are just not about the "one company for life" thing (Like Jim Keller). A lot of the names mentioned here either started to work elsewhere in the same month or the next month. That's more in line with someone who left rather than being fired.

NoyandWhen you work at that level, it's not necessarily "being let go" rather than looking for the next challenge elsewhere. Some people are just not about the "one company for life" thing (Like Jim Keller). A lot of the names mentioned here either started to work elsewhere in the same month or the next month. That's more in line with someone who left rather than being fired.

None of these job hoppers in gaming are naming games that have really made a difference though. Name me one.

Fact is they're not dedicated, and the best games come from truly dedicated teams that put heart and soul in it. For these guys its just the next project though. And yeah yeah, they say every time, like a broken record 'I've put all my effort in this one'. Imagine if they said anything else...

Its unfortunate, but the true gems come from new studios, new teams that have put their heads together and said 'we will make this happen'. Not from top-to-bottom directed teams that are making sequels. Just forget it. Das war einmal.

The Witcher 3 was that one-time affair for CDPR. And we all know how poor that project was managed. Its a miracle it turned out as well as it did. Cyberpunk confirmed that notion in every possible way, with far worse project management. It looks like CDPR has learned, so now we get a fully corporate driven, managed experience. Things will still be broken at launch, but now there's a solid PR story behind it.

Mark my words.

Vayra86None of these job hoppers in gaming are naming games that have really made a difference though. Name me one.

Fact is they're not dedicated, and the best games come from truly dedicated teams that put heart and soul in it. For these guys its just the next project though. And yeah yeah, they say every time, like a broken record 'I've put all my effort in this one'. Imagine if they said anything else...

Its unfortunate, but the true gems come from new studios, new teams that have put their heads together and said 'we will make this happen'. Not from top-to-bottom directed teams that are making sequels. Just forget it. Das war einmal.

The Witcher 3 was that one-time affair for CDPR. And we all know how poor that project was managed. Its a miracle it turned out as well as it did. Cyberpunk confirmed that notion in every possible way, with far worse project management. It looks like CDPR has learned, so now we get a fully corporate driven, managed experience. Things will still be broken at launch, but now there's a solid PR story behind it.

Mark my words.

Dishonored, Star Wars : The Old Republic, Hitman 2 were successful games. Control is a good game, interesting story, but maybe actually too weird to get a broader appeal. Control feels like something that could have been made by David Lynch. That's how weird it is for better or for worse (Lynch is a great filmmaker, he did elephant man and Twin Peaks, but some of its work is really too out-there if you don't like experimental stuff)

A counterargument would be : poaching talent from a recent Indy studios that's been successful in their endeavor might not be as easy as it sounds: small studios often means a more laid-back environment, more creative control, the possibility of working on a game that really feels like it's "yours". If you join an AAA studio, to work on an AAA title, you have to give up on that. Even more so if said studio got a super talent (the like of Sam Lake, or Yoko Taro). Indies talent might feel like they haven't finished what they needed to do yet, or have more projects closer to them that they want to realize rather than working on "someone else game". It's the kind of people that often leave a studio that got too big for "creative differences" and end up starting a new studio again.

The Big vs Small studio thing is something that happens in every creative industry: Big studios, big clients pay well, and looks nice on the CV, but can be mentally taxing and frustrating if you have the soul of an artist. If you don't work at the top, you can get the impression that you are just a tiny cog in a gigantic machine. Small studios are often more fun, get you really more involved in the meat of the project, but you don't get paid as well, or your work don't get the same reach. They don't attract the same profile, I've met people who have the skill to work in a big company choosing to stay in a smaller one because it gives them more time to work on stuff that they really like.

NoyandDishonored, Star Wars : The Old Republic, Hitman 2 were successful games. Control is a good game, interesting story, but maybe actually too weird to get a broader appeal. Control feels like something that could have been made by David Lynch. That's how weird it is for better or for worse (Lynch is a great filmmaker, he did elephant man and Twin Peaks, but some of its work is really too out-there if you don't like experimental stuff)

A counterargument would be : poaching talent from a recent Indy studios that's been successful in their endeavor might not be as easy as it sounds: small studios often means a more laid-back environment, more creative control, the possibility of working on a game that really feels like it's "yours". If you join an AAA studio, to work on an AAA title, you have to give up on that. Even more so if said studio got a super talent (the like of Sam Lake, or Yoko Taro). Indies talent might feel like they haven't finished what they needed to do yet, or have more projects closer to them that they want to realize rather than working on "someone else game". It's the kind of people that often leave a studio that got too big for "creative differences" and end up starting a new studio again.

The Big vs Small studio thing is something that happens in every creative industry: Big studios, big clients pay well, and looks nice on the CV, but can be mentally taxing and frustrating if you have the soul of an artist. If you don't work at the top, you can get the impression that you are just a tiny cog in a gigantic machine. Small studios are often more fun, get you really more involved in the meat of the project, but you don't get paid as well, or your work don't get the same reach. They don't attract the same profile, I've met people who have the skill to work in a big company choosing to stay in a smaller one because it gives them more time to work on stuff that they really like.

Well this is exactly what I was meaning to say about how I see this caliber of workforce, thank you.

Vayra86None of these job hoppers in gaming are naming games that have really made a difference though. Name me one.

Fact is they're not dedicated, and the best games come from truly dedicated teams that put heart and soul in it. For these guys its just the next project though. And yeah yeah, they say every time, like a broken record 'I've put all my effort in this one'. Imagine if they said anything else...

Its unfortunate, but the true gems come from new studios, new teams that have put their heads together and said 'we will make this happen'. Not from top-to-bottom directed teams that are making sequels. Just forget it. Das war einmal.

The Witcher 3 was that one-time affair for CDPR. And we all know how poor that project was managed. Its a miracle it turned out as well as it did. Cyberpunk confirmed that notion in every possible way, with far worse project management. It looks like CDPR has learned, so now we get a fully corporate driven, managed experience. Things will still be broken at launch, but now there's a solid PR story behind it.

Mark my words.

Indeed. The only company that does the "quality" games, is the one that is new and tries to impress. As soon as they begin feel the smell and taste of money, that company is doomed. No matter how wonderful the game and project is, there's 100% guarantee, that the next one will be no efforts greed-driven cash grab.

The ony successful company can be, if they are combined from the scattered professionals, that were "burned" by the failed company's business decisions. That took the damage and yet have the vision, willing to intentionally make the great game, notwithstanding the amount of money they will get, by learning their lesson, and accepting bitter experience. Otherwise, they all are doomed. Every of them.

Look how these countless of studios are "successfull" only financially, and eventually being watered down inside the publisher parent companies, or even straight away fired/closed. This is because the companies ideas are shortlived, narrowminded and have no creativity. They are doomed to repeat the same pattern, by making some PR, making sales, push some filthy DLC, or silly sequel, and then say goodbye to all guys/gals who serviced the C-suit "brilliant" strategy.

This is indeed ideological decision, not financial. Surely, nobody would make a game without money, let alone a good one. But there's some thin line of "enough" many of them missing. It's not up to hire big studios, and many "experienced" people. It's about managing a direction, in which the product will go (mad profits or fun) beforehand. And yes, none investor will fund a company, if they won't give 'em big money numbers. The only way to get the game successful is an enthusiastic route.

Random_UserIndeed. The only company that does the "quality" games, is the one that is new and tries to impress. As soon as they begin feel the smell and taste of money, that company is doomed. No matter how wonderful the game and project is, there's 100% guarantee, that the next one will be no efforts greed-driven cash grab.

The ony successful company can be, if they are combined from the scattered professionals, that were "burned" by the failed company's business decisions. That took the damage and yet have the vision, willing to intentionally make the great game, notwithstanding the amount of money they will get, by learning their lesson, and accepting bitter experience. Otherwise, they all are doomed. Every of them.

Look how these countless of studios are "successfull" only financially, and eventually being watered down inside the publisher parent companies, or even straight away fired/closed. This is because the companies ideas are shortlived, narrowminded and have no creativity. They are doomed to repeat the same pattern, by making some PR, making sales, push some filthy DLC, or silly sequel, and then say goodbye to all guys/gals who serviced the C-suit "brilliant" strategy.

This is indeed ideological decision, not financial. Surely, nobody would make a game without money, let alone a good one. But there's some thin line of "enough" many of them missing. It's not up to hire big studios, and many "experienced" people. It's about managing a direction, in which the product will go (mad profits or fun) beforehand. And yes, none investor will fund a company, if they won't give 'em big money numbers. The only way to get the game successful is an enthusiastic route.

The "high of success" can also ruin them. Cyberpunk wasn't just pressured by the investors, some people at CDPR felt invincible after TW3... but a big chunk of TW3 just refined a lot of elements that were already in TW2, open world was the big thing that they needed to figure out. Now, cyberpunk was a whole new ballpark, but because "we're the studio who made TW3" they went and tried to do things that many studios are taking baby steps at achieving because it's technically hard. Say to them that it's unrealistic for the time frame available, and they will say: "we made the forking TW3, we will figure it out".

Vanilla cyberpunk obviously lacked focus and a clear direction to follow, the released game still had vestigial ideas that were of no use in the actual gameplay, and many ideas that were presented to the public never made it to the final game. If the leads were humbler, the launch would have been less painful. Cyberpunk 2.0 is a good game. Yes, it didn't have the impact that TW3 had, but honestly, focusing too much on outdoing your previous achievement can also prevent a game from blossoming into its best form. Not every Zelda game reached an iconic status, but every one of them are at least solid games in their own right.

Nintendo work ethic and development model on some of their games is something that other studios could learn from : each sequel uses the strong foundations of the prequel, but adds a new core mechanic that make the game different. Zelda OOT and Majora's Mask are a prime example of how you can keep the basic elements of a game, but still make something that doesn't feel the same once you play it. A good balance of risk and rationality is ideal.

What I hope is that the sequel of CP2077 is going to refine the core gameplay, while bringing enough novelty and risk taking where it counts to make it feel fresh. I don't want to hear anything about how it's going to be a revolution of the gaming industry. No one who said that ever managed to fill those shoes.

About that news, though, we need to keep in mind that CDPR lost a few vets, and are trying to work on several games at the time. All the people that they're hired are going to be leads and director. My guess is that they just don't have enough hands on deck to manage everything. IIRC, the remake of TW1 is the one being handled by an external studio made of old timers of CDPR. While Warsaw is focused on TW4, but without Geralt, while also developing a new undisclosed IP.

NoyandVanilla cyberpunk obviously lacked focus and a clear direction to follow

I think, this is applicable to many many recent games. And sadly, modding being presented as a feature, rather than a fact of game missing content and design flaws.

I have high hopes for this. I hope they don't go woke, and that they expand upon the first game, and not simply reboot it.