@hall0559: How is going against the norm/grain "cowardly"?... I think this reviewer has a huge set of balls (despite being female) for just slapping a 7 on it. I think it's hilarious.

Accurate? - Perhaps not. I would be it feels more like an 8-9, if not at least 75% (3/4th) positive. Can't be more than 25-30% bad, come on, they didn't half-ass it for sure.

But what is "cowardly" about this? XD

@Barighm: Well, yea... I get that. - I'm not a fan(boy) or anything. But people just fall in love with these games and, because of that, the developers. Like I don't think the later Fallout-games are all that amazing, nor Skyrim, but I get why people love that stuff and then nerd out about it and praise it and their respective studios to the heavens.
I thought CyberPunk would be an 8-9 at least, and it might be after I've played it myself, but also a more polished product in general because of CDPR's experience with their previous games and their desire to make it the best they can.

Oh, and CDPR is also very clever with their marketing as being on the consumer's side. And that's fair, with the anti-DRM stance and not ripping people off and giving people the same experience as much as possible. - That's a huge part of why people praise CDPR, regardless of their own games. - Just like people give Bethesda crap, regardless of whatever is under their company. People now care what a company's actions are as well.

@hardslatter: Some of those are fair, some don't make sense.
But you'd think a company like Gamespot would just throw that 9 or 10 at something like CyberPunk. - But I appreciate that they just had the balls to do this. XD

I haven't cared about Gamespot for years (ever since the controversies with Kane & Lynch and such), but I thought they'd just pin a 9 or 10 on this game like any other company would.

But I gotta say; Respect for the balls and honesty on this one. XD - Doesn't mean it's necessarily accurate, but the fact they just plunk a 7 on this hyped and big piece of work...

I do have to add that you probably should take more time to really get into the game and fall in love with it, because I just don't think that it's going to be perfect in any way. It's a ROLE PLAYING GAME, you should just get immersed in it and go along with it. - Of course, technical issues can break the experience, like other stupid things, but this is probably, like Witcher and Skyrim and so on, just one of those games you have to disappear into to appreciate.

They've just wasted too much time on a movie for this. - They should've done it when people were excited for a movie and many people were making lists of actors that were pretty good a lot of the time. - For example, Nathan Fillion as Nathan Drake, which became a reality in an online short. But it's less and less likely that he'd do it for a full movie as he's getting older. He's heading for 50 next year, so even though he could probably do it (I mean, look at what Harrison Ford did with Indy and he's still doing a 5th nearing 80), it will become tougher.

That said, I also saw another actor in the latest rendition of Drake, but I kinda forgot...

Anyway, whether or not they should do a movie or a whole franchise. Perhaps... They should just do it right, no Mark Wahlberg (not as Sully either), no Tom Holland, just get the right actors and especially have a good story and make it feel like the games. - If not, just don't. And really, it should have happened somewhere between 2016 and 2020. - We're now getting a series based on 'The Last of Us', however, which is also interesting.

@thelostscribe: Here's me aiming for 120fps since recently...

But there is a purpose behind different framerates, and the rule of thumb is "The faster the game, the higher the framerate should be.". And by faster I also mean as to how critical it is to play well. For example, are you playing competitively? Then higher framerates are more important, however, with a screen that can also refresh the image as quickly. That way you'll get less of a blur and more "direct" information.

Are you playing an adventure-game along the lines of "Uncharted" and such? 30-60fps is fine. And the lower end of that does make for a more "cinematic" experience, without using it as an excuse. - For the same reason I actually "settled" for the Quantic Dream games on PC, especially because they're meant to be like interactive movies anyway. But I had tried some of them on PC at 60fps and it came across absolutely goofy. The reason being that, apparently, the "soap opera effect" also applies to videogames.

Are you playing an action-oriented game? I would definitely aim for that 60fps standard so that it feels quick enough. I mean, you don't really want something like 'Mirror's Edge' to feel sluggish. Let's say it's better for most first-person view games anyway.
The exception I'd make is for really fast games that can also be quite difficult, such as the new DOOM-games. I'd recommend aiming for the 120fps+ region (again, accompanied by an appropriate screen) so it's just extra tight.
That's not to say that it can't be done at lower framerates. I mean, I had to do with an average of 45fps in 'Team Fortress 2' back in like 2007-2009 and I was still high up on the scoreboards. But it is tiresome as you just "deal with it".

But now I'd like more suitable framerates. It might be nitpicky, but life is too short to skimp on quality and we're lucky to have access to these first world problems. ;P
So 'DOOT Eternal' in 21:9 at 120fps, yes please.

@frosty988: *Create new STORIES.

Seems everyone is forgetting that movies are supposed to tell stories, and shouldn't just be there to stare at "interesting characters" doing random stuff and create spectacle.

@Iamkalell: No. The spin-off bullshit is also forced... They should just tale Bond and its universe and frickin' WRITE GOOD STORIES! - The Craig-movies were lacking this as well after the first... They're quite pointless even though it had so much potential after the fantastic first one. - Changing the formula like changing the character, or doing spin-offs, would all be for the sake of making money, not telling a good story.

That said; Maybe if they'd do it like a series (like on Netflix) and they'd tell the stories of the other agents, kind of like they do the series for the MarvelCU (which, by the way, are more impressive than the movies as well).
If there's some female agent, fine... Still doesn't have to be a lead, still doesn't even have to be an agent. There are plenty of females in the franchise. Bond bones many of them... Bond fights plenty of them... Bond works with plenty of them...

@Mogan: The spin-off thing is so cringeworthy as well.

Didn't they recently do this with Iron Man?... In the comics I mean... And then they make it this black babe with an Afro whose hair would get stuck between the automatically closing helmet. - It's so painfully forced that it's not a welcome idea.

At most they could do is like introduce a daughter, maybe even for Craig's Bond. But then, that's just as much of a cliché in terms of story-telling or at least within movies. When a franchise gets tired there's always "the introduction of the son/daughter". - Maybe the Wolverine-series of movies was lucky there already was a daughter in the comics, but otherwise I'd have rolled my eyes at it.

Why can't they just leave it alone, let James Bond be James bond and write a god damn good story??
I was all for the Craig-Bond, by the way, but they stopped writing a good story for it since the second movie.
The rest is not memorable... That's the problem with the big movies. - They shouldn't make it about trying to find a new character or what gimmick to use next, they should tell good memorable stories.