The game was built like TES games. Some of the sidequests are actually the best ones. So they said (CDP) and this is why you can rush Cyberpunk 2077 in 20-30 hours, which you can't in Witcher 3 for example, which is far more linear and side quests did not get much love.
There's tons of content i Cyberpunk if you complete everything.
Personally I get bored regardless. A huge mainquest line can dry out, but side-quests also drain me if they are too long..
I prefer a solid main quest with 20-40 hours with some optional (good) side quests and this is what Cyberpunk tried to do, and somewhat succeded with and preferably a "end game" mode but this is hard to do i guess, new game plus is not something i do, because i have already seen it all
The game was built like TES? Perhaps the map marker part of it, but other than that, it offers nothing that TES does have in terms of RPG.
Its more an RPG like WoW, where the quest marker means you accept a mission and you later return to another NPC with a question mark above his head when finished (practically, be it a map marker or not). Let's be honest here. There is no depth. The best you get is a few different ways to enter buildings. There is a handful of branches and outcomes (rewards, again with no impact on anything else!) off a small selection of side quests - but its very scarce. As far as the side missions being 'hand-crafted' - sure, they built some stuff to get them done, but each is a linear affair with no impact on the rest of the world. Choices are meaningless most of the time, unless they're within the main story arc - and even then it all boils down to one final choice at the end, which is always the same set of options.
Another thing: single player campaigns of most modern shooters can be finished in 5 hours tops, but still nobody calls those games broken because of it.
Isn't that the same in every open world RPG? In The Witcher series, guards are pretty much undefeatable (you can't even attack them in the first game), and basically every RPG gamer can quote from Oblivion: "Stop right there, criminal scum", "Stop! You violated the law." Technically, you can murder whole cities in Skyrim, but there's no point in it, and I don't know if it's even possible to shoot civilians in Mass Effect. RPG means role playing game, not god simulator after all.
As for interaction, I personally don't need it with a million people in a metropolis. The people walking next to me in any real-world city are just as faceless and alien to me as NPCs of Night City, and so I'm not actively looking for surprise interactions. If nothing happens and nobody talks to me while I go from A to B, it's perfectly fine. An example from the other side is The Elder Scrolls series, where Bethesda tried to create a world where every NPC has their backstory and life events. It somewhat worked with Oblivion, but (in my opinion) failed with Skyrim because of the short development time. Probably CDPR could have created a more interactive world in another year, but I personally don't require it in a futuristic, dystopian city. The lack of interactions actually add to my feeling of the alienated, empty atmosphere of the post-modern world.
I can agree with this. Gang fight markers only clutter the map unnecessarily. Nobody will travel across half the city just to shoot criminals with no connection to any storyline. Though I disagree with calling the game broken because of this, as this is not an error, but a feature that should have been executed differently. It also doesn't affect my immersion with the game. I just disregard these map markers entirely, and treat gang fights as random events (as they should be).
Its always a matter of perspective, so here's mine on those points:
- 5 hour SP shooters always offer a multiplayer mode that is actually the bread and butter. See CoD. BF. Etc. Let's compare apples and apples. Such as The Witcher 3, which gave you 200 hours instead of 31. Quite a gap... even with your leisurely stroll through Night City. The gap of 9 hours is a difference between rushing and not doing so... I think that answers it perfectly, you answered yourself that CBP is pretty weak in content - EVEN if you take your time. Let's be lenient and say you get another 50% playtime out of it... still not even close.
- RPG means role play indeed. It means, when caught, like you compare Skyrim, you actually get dialogue that gives you RP options. Go to jail, pay fine, resist arrest. Resisting arrest is NOT a one-hitting guard, its a hard hitting guard that sort of forces you to turn tail and run. Big difference... The game
continues unless you really have the death wish and want to fight a force you can't beat - thát is the essence of role play. Role play is not 'you did something wrong - here's death out of a total nowhere with no escape'. A solid RP game, always gives you choices. Even if some aren't always as apparent, but the devs coded those things in, because players must have that idea of
freedom of action and choice. That's what makes it 'real' and what makes it RP.
- Mass Effect is not an open world RPG, every NPC is a scene/set piece more so than an actor in a living world with random actions. Its a linear, scripted RPG with lots of branching storylines. Remember: Apples & Apples. Regardless, ME offers more interactivity still with all of those scripted events and tons, literally tons of dialogues and outcomes. Up to and including the total loss of party members etc. CBP? Has it too, but its linear, fixed, and always the same. That's not RP. That's an action game narrative.
- Went over interaction. Its not about talking to every Joe. Its about a world that is more than scenery and with emergent gameplay. All your comparisons have it, except maybe Mass Effect, but CBP does not. Does it need random events every time you walk the street? Ofc not, but nobody ever said that. But it does need some of them. Even The Witcher 3 has them, and they're never really in your way, but do make the world feel more alive. Its a simple concept. Random encounters, something tons of open world games have implemented perfectly. You may not 'need it', but aren't you fooling yourself if you deny its something that should be expected from an open world game?
Dunno man, I kinda read a lot of rose tinted glasses when you're talking about this game, or you really went in with ultra low expectations - if not unrealistically low. I had an initial hype feeling too with this game. The first hours it doesn't wear off, you can have a lot of fun exploring. But when that initial hype comes off and you look back at what you've seen... meh. Unimpressive in many ways, impressive in just a few.