Yea no one played so no one can say anything huh, CDPR did add that and they removed it for "design reasons" and I just mentioned that part and whenever they show game, always says "NOT FINAL" and constantly changing so how do you think about this game other than assertions from what they showed ? And next, this game RGB - Neon has been in the retrowave music or synthwave which is again not a part of this game. "huge part of the Cyberpunk genre since it's inception" just like 80s cyberpunk anime like Neo Tokyo or Metropolis or Ergo Proxy or Ghost in the Shell or the games such as Hard Reset, Deus Ex series ? or the Halo series it's also highly sci fi and futuristic, Titanfall, MGS as well although latter are more of a Military Sci Fi Mecha. What is garbage here huh, and what is the "substantial evidence" that you got here for declaring what's correct as per cyberpunk or the game or the genre, your opinion ? stop determining what's correct and what not.
More of this is it just lives on the Hypemachine, and delays upon delays, lot of changes. The new gig trailer starts "Night city, the city of endless oppurtunities.." screams GTA clone (Watchdogs2) with all that happy go theme.
Sorry, am I the one here trying to decide what is correct and what isn't? Last I checked, you were the one complaining that this game doesn't fit your taste and that everything they are doing is somehow
wrong. Also, are you actually arguing that cyberpunk anime
isn't full of neon? On the contrary, many would argue that the archetypal cyberpunk cityscape of dark, wet, worn streets lit by pulsing, multi-colored neon lights was adopted from anime in the first place. There are obviously works that can be called cyberpunk that
don't particularly feature neon in their aesthetic, but they make up for that by increasing focus on other genre-specific elements (noir or noir-like characters, storylines and plots; a worn-out, lived-in, modified and hand-made feel to the world and objects; societal disarray and unrest (often contrasted against technological marvels); cyborgs and transhumanism; etc.). And what on earth is the relevance of mentioning other media forms that share stylistic elements with cyberpunk but aren't a part of this game? Are you actually trying to argue that a stylistic element can only - exclusively! - be a part of a single genre or style? Or that if you choose to include this stylistic element, then you also must adapt your work to fit all applicable genres in which it is a part? Either you are really bad at trolling or your comprehension of how cultural genres exist, overlap, evolve and borrow from each other is severely lacking. If the singer of a band wears a fedora, that doesn't mean they must both play jazz, ska and be Linux programmers, right? Or would you argue that 90s boy bands were (or should be seen as) hip hop because they wore baggy pants? Sorry man, but that line of reasoning is just silly. All artistic products borrow and mix elements from all over the place; it's an overview of the totality that ultimately allows us to (often vaguely and with reservations) place it within a genre.
Also, why are you pulling other, clearly non-cyberpunk games into this? Halo? Titanfall? MGS? Sure, you could say cyberpunk is a subgenre of sci-fi, and all of those games fit within the overall sci-fi umbrella, but... so what? Cyberpunk being a
subgenre means it has certain elements or combinations of elements to it that make it distinct from the overall genre - otherwise it would obviously be impossible to distinguish the subgenre from the broader one. You do mention some edge cases - early Deus Ex games, for example, might be better described as some sort of sci-fi noir than cyberpunk, even if later games in the series have more evolved towards the latter. Genres lines are after all flexible, blurry, constantly evolving and highly relational.
As for the removal of wall running: removing it for "design reasons" might be a bit vague, but it makes perfect sense in many different ways - it might have made good level design too difficult or resource intensive (if not downright impossible), it might have been hard to implement in a way that meshed well with the rest of gameplay, it might have meshed poorly with other abilities, it might have been a bad fit for the physics engine and forced a lot of bug-inducing hacks ... there are plenty of valid reasons for cutting a feature that can be summed up as "design reasons". It's also rather weird that you are so hung up on the removal of a single (potential) feature from a game you express no desire to play regardless of this.
As to the "not final" in the gameplay trailers: that is how game development works. It is an iterative and dynamic process with hundreds if not thousands of variables, each of which needs to come together in a way that works. If not, then something has to give. Something that seems like a great idea on paper - or even in early testing - might not actually work out overall and thus get cut. Every single game trailer released a significant amount of time before release is labeled like this, and a lot of them purposely leave out a lot of features simply because they haven't tested them thoroughly yet. You're welcome to disagree with CDPR's choice of including what has turned out to be an untested and relatively major mechanic in an early trailer - it isn't the best practice, sure - but beyond that, you don't have a say. You do not know what you get in a game until it is final and you are playing it - and that is
obviously the way things should be. Your attitude here smacks of a very particular mix: part of it is the extreme level of entitlement often seen in gamer "fan" culture where there seems to be a relatively common belief that players somehow "deserve" things from the people making the games; part of it looks like an extreme desire to deride either a developer or a game that you for some reason don't like. You are of course perfectly welcome to dislike either CDPR, their upcoming game, or both, but you could at the very least show other forum members the courtesy of making actual arguments for your views if you find it problematic enough that you need to say so. If not, what are you hoping to achieve? If you want to convince someone of your points, you need to make your reasoning clear, which you haven't done whatsoever.
A few finishing comments: "delays upon delays" and "lots of changes" - welcome to game development! The former is a sad consequence of the current organization and management style of the game industry, which will hopefully be rectified somewhat over the coming decade as developers start organizing and demanding more predictable and humane working conditions and the industry matures overall. The latter is an inevitable consequence of artistic development. No work is
ever translated "perfectly" or 1:1 from the initial idea to the final product. That is simply not how these things work - and if it was, we would be playing much worse games than we are. You should be thankful for that. The last comment:
every single game in the known universe tries to sell itself on the premise of "look at all the cool stuff you can do". Presenting this as an argument for this game being GTA-like is ... no, just no.
