@videogameninja: I am part of the population you described and, to be honest, i wasn't wowed by this trailer either. I am pretty sure it could be an absolute great game, but honestly i don't feel it as a masterpiece. I have to admit i am more interested in appreciating the artistic design of the game, for it looks kind of gorgeous. But in the end: no, I didn't get a true thrill or excitement for this game. I have interest in it, but not passionately.
people are still going to trash talk this game retelling old arguments about what the game "should've been"...well, honestly, thats water under the bridge by now. The developing team has obviously done a lot to make up for their faults and this is nothing but another example of how to have true commitment in spite of the mistakes and errors made.
Say what you want about NMS, but the game is amassing a lot of cult following by now. And it will only get bigger and better, by the looks of it.
wao...i can't believe how millions of people find this trash appealing. I know it is a matter of taste, but just because you find The Room a good movie, doesn't mean it is.
@Vojtass: good point on the camera settings thing. I hadn't thought of that and it makes sense. Infamous Second Son is third person and has neon effects, but nowhere near the stylish setting that represents C2077. Still, I don't think it's an absolute, because through the Infamous design you can see that there are possibilities, however the very same game had camera issues too. Spiderman may go through the same mishaps.
I don't think TPP would be awful though. If you really want a game to be TPP, you can do it. If you want it FPP, you can also do it.
GTAV had both perspectives.
Mirror's Edge was FPP, meanwhile Gears of War is TPP. BOTH cases could represent the breaking of this rule because, when they were first designing these games, you could've otherwise suggest that they should've been the opposite. Think about it, someone describes a game like Gears and, back in 2005 and even now, it would truly seem adequate for FPP. The same with Mirror's Edge (Assassin's Creed, anyone?).
So, I do understand your point and think it does make sense. However, I believe that generally both perspectives are available for every single player experience and it is up to the developer to choose one, or both.
i can't believe this. People actually think that this is good for gaming because it's a "design decision" or a "passionate take" blah blah blah...why is third person suddenly not design-wise? how can people actually sit there and take this excuse from CDPR? it's obvious that this is a bit of a mistake.
Don't get me wrong. I am not saying this will suck. But it's not a surprise that people are angry. All im pointing out is that the argument of design is completely manipulated and unrealistic.
Battlefield V, with all of its controversy, has the same situation. Choosing a woman with a prosthetic arm as the cover character of a WWII video game is also a "design choice". But, is it a good one? *pause* EXACTLY. How is design suddenly the maker of all evil/good? This is a coward argument. Just say you did it because you wanted to. Just say you did it because the director felt it was the right choice. Just admit that you did this because of the design of your own consumer approach and thinking. Do not use design as a scientific method that proves the purpose of your decision.
Design is PERSONAL. Design is chosen, not given. Design is Coco Chanel, Steve Jobs and Andy Warhol; it is a vision, a statement and plea towards expression. Design itself is scientific, but our design is our decision only, not science's.
CDPR, you chose FPP? OWN IT. EA kinda did already by banning history accuracy arguments on their BF V reddit account and going Deal-with-it all over us. This doesn't make BF V any less dumb, but it does exemplify how companies can adhere to their decisions and not use poor non-related excuses.
G-Corleone's comments