Forums » General Gaming

Cyberpunk's map is dense and I'm glad

    • 700 posts
    October 6, 2020 4:12 PM EDT

    Ever since "open world" became a genre, the emphasis has been on making maps BIGGER, as if 29 square miles of explorable land is worth anything on its own. Fallout 4 got their map dead on with verticality and fleshed out urban environments. I'm expecting similar results with Cyberpunk. 

    Source

  • Mr.
    • 763 posts
    October 6, 2020 10:23 PM EDT

    Good to see you again, Legion. I agree. The problem with huge open-world maps (in extension) is that you have to know how to make them, and there has to be a reason for you to make them. That reason can't be "because big maps are cool and trendy", otherwise you end up with a huge empty cask, devoid of real substance, like Assassin's Creed Origins, Odyssey or Ubisoft games in general, where you can clearly see the same assets for even major buildings, like temples, simply repeated all around the world. I'm not saying devs shouldn't repeat assets, far from it, but it's something to avoid, especially with landmark buildings, and if you have to repeat a landmark building even a single time, it's a sign telling you to stop. 

     

    But in Cyberpunk's case, I have a feeling that leaked map isn't showing the entirety of the Badlands. It's a map of the city, and I feel like there is some more land to the east of that highway between Santo Domingo and Westbrook... Unless the Badlands are in the Southwest (which it doesn't look like, given that screenshot in the OP), in which case they are on the map. 

     

    Alas,  I'll probably hold off on playing Cyberpunk 2077 for at least a month, but potentially until June/July next year. The latter would be the wiser choice, considering real life deadlines and projects... And I have to buy a new GPU for it, which will be hard to do this year anyway, given the low supply of the new RTX 3000x and the economies of a college student with a low-paying intern job. 

    But, in Fallout at least, sometimes it's better to spec on Luck rather than Intelligence.


    This post was edited by Mr. at October 7, 2020 9:53 AM EDT
    • 700 posts
    October 7, 2020 2:03 PM EDT

    Mr. said:

    Good to see you again, Legion. I agree. The problem with huge open-world maps (in extension) is that you have to know how to make them, and there has to be a reason for you to make them. That reason can't be "because big maps are cool and trendy", otherwise you end up with a huge empty cask, devoid of real substance, like Assassin's Creed Origins, Odyssey or Ubisoft games in general, where you can clearly see the same assets for even major buildings, like temples, simply repeated all around the world. I'm not saying devs shouldn't repeat assets, far from it, but it's something to avoid, especially with landmark buildings, and if you have to repeat a landmark building even a single time, it's a sign telling you to stop. 

     

    But in Cyberpunk's case, I have a feeling that leaked map isn't showing the entirety of the Badlands. It's a map of the city, and I feel like there is some more land to the east of that highway between Santo Domingo and Westbrook... Unless the Badlands are in the Southwest (which it doesn't look like, given that screenshot in the OP), in which case they are on the map. 

     

    Alas,  I'll probably hold off on playing Cyberpunk 2077 for at least a month, but potentially until June/July next year. The latter would be the wiser choice, considering real life deadlines and projects... And I have to buy a new GPU for it, which will be hard to do this year anyway, given the low supply of the new RTX 3000x and the economies of a college student with a low-paying intern job. 

    But, in Fallout at least, sometimes it's better to spec on Luck rather than Intelligence.


    What it do Edd. I see you've dropped all but the Mr. I didn't play Origins, so I can't say, but I did play RDR2, and that map makes me dread the first 10 hours or so of the game. I'm over these giant maps that try to hide the fact that you're walking 10+ minutes in each direction to complete and turn in quests by being really pretty on the way. Its boring, I'm bored, give me a radio or something to shoot. 

    I think you're right, I saw some people on the thread I linked talking about that. Luckily, we'll probably get to drive out there. I plan on holding off on buying it as well. I always like to wait and let the devs fix whatever new bugs come up at least. A steam sale with all the DLC bundled tends to be worth waitng for too. I haven't even checked the game requirements against my system. If it's anything like the Witcher 3, I can probably run it okay. 

     

    Edit:

    Cyberpunk minimum requirements:

    OS: 64-bit Windows 10. DirectX 12 is necessary to run the game.
    Processor: Intel Core i7-4790 or AMD Ryzen 3 3200G
    Graphics: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 6 GB or AMD Radeon R9 Fury
    RAM: 12 GB
    Disk space: 70 GB SSD

    I'm safe for everything but the graphics, which I just hit the minimum for. I'd like to upgrade to the point where I can play in 1440p with consistent fps across all my games. I just got Fallout 4 to run in 1440 but it dips from 60 to 30 in dense environments. What's the deal with the low supply of RTX 3000x?


    This post was edited by Legion at October 7, 2020 2:19 PM EDT
    • 1595 posts
    October 7, 2020 5:43 PM EDT

    Mr is right, it is nice to see you, Legion! I didn't quite know what to say when I read your OP yesterday, definitely not how a dense vs non-dense map is a good or bad thing for Cyberpunk as a genre, but your mention of RDR2 has me wanting to put thoughts into words and type those words.

    Which I'm doing.

    Right now.

    I recently finished RDR 2. It took me about nine months, having stalled somewhere just after starting the final arc, I guess. One thing I definitely appreciated throughout the game and all it's litle flaws and idiosyncracies, was the map. 2010's Red Dead Redemption was a major inspiration to me - I'd kind of grown up with a father who was a Clint Eastwood fan, so it wasn't as though I was a stranger to the Western as a genre. But it wasn't until I played RDR that I actually appreciated it in any meaningful way. Long story short, I was blown away by the game and its central themes - which I interpretetd as futility and lonliness. So, eager to dive more into that, I watched literally every single western I could get my hands on before finally coming home with the discovery of the Revisionist Westerns: Peckinpah's The Wild Bunch, Eastwood's Unforgiven, Butch Cassidy and The Sundance Kid... Hell, even No Country for Old Men.

    It's probably safe to say that, when we think of what a modern Western is in today's world, it's the Revisionist style that carries the most resonance and has stood the test of time. The rousing, sometimes boysterous nature and slapstick comedy moments of the Classic Western from Hollywood's Golden Age are a bit hard to take seriously if it wasn't for the stunning cinematography and often incredile scores. At least, in my mind. When playing RDR2, then, it was these revisionist themes I was looking to experience over and above anything else.

    Sure, for the first chunk of the game I was bowled over by the visuals and was testing the boundaries of the world while feeling like a proper outlaw. You know, eager for the next gunfight and hoping some dude in a saloon looks at me funny to give me that excuse I needed to have a proper barroom brawl and turn the poor fool inside out. Yet it was the quiet elements of the game that innevitably won out once I'd stopped comparing Arthur Morgan to John Marston as a protagoinist and started accepting the former for the character he was.

    Am I rambling? Stop me if I'm rambling.

    Arthur's tale quickly gained my attention for all the themes I've come to love in a Western film. He was conflicted, unsure of his place in a world so rapidly changing that he felt the arrival of the innevitable civilisation more keenly than other member's of Dutch's gamg. Naturally, this sets him apart somewhat from others, leading to a certain lonliness and sense of futility.Who was he now, in this moment in time? What was the point of it all, all that running from one camp to thenext chasing a dying dream?

    It was then I truly started to appreciate the beauty of the map in more than an aesthetic sense. There's no two ways about it, the game does frequently send Arthur right to the other side of the goddam gameworld just to extort money out of a guy who stupidly signed up to Strauss' (thoroughly deplorable but utterly believable and relevent) schemes. Arthur's own inner conflict is nicely told in a microcosm as those missions progress. Sometimes this journey backj and forth across the length and bredth of the map felt a little frsutrating, especially when I knew I only had an hour because of real life and wanted to actually "play" the game.

    However, as i said I grew to really appreciate how the map is used to tell the story and address the themes. It's the sense of scale that does it, I think. It's the long ride through hard country and the sweeping vistas that make you feel small. It's the lack of any control over the weather, how one moment you can be awed by a particular view and use of light and sound, to then having that moment ruined by dark clouds and the coming of rain. Suddenly the long ride is not as enjoyable, or is but in a different way. There's a real sense of loneliness, of being small and utterly inconsequential in the world. There are moments when the beauty of nature get broken by the grime and dirt of civilisation, to the point in which you can't help but share Arthur's disgust at the city of Saint Denis.

    It all comes to a head at the very last playable segement of the game, which I won't spoil apart from to say there is an area about one-third the size of the playable map that has absolutely nothing to do in it. There are the occasional NPCs to be found, bandits to shoot and so forth, but no meaningful dialogue or story to undertake. It's just you, a horse, and an empty world. Nothing in the game up until that point felt quite as Western than that area, to me. Bleak, lonely, and futile as the player is left to think on what has gone and what will be, to see the beauty of the world and nature slowly but inevitably fall to the encroachment of civilisation.

    I couldn't help but ask myself, was Dutch right in chasing that fading dream and fighting that losing war?

    In my mind, RDR 2's map ws a map done well becuase it complimented the story by visually and audibly adressing the central themes of the story. It forced you to feel lonely, to feel small, and to feel the things Arthur felt.

    I'm curious as i'm not a cyberpunk enthusiast, more just a casual fan: What could the map do to help define and showcase Cyberpunk as a genre in the way RDR2's map does for the Western?

  • Mr.
    • 763 posts
    October 7, 2020 9:05 PM EDT

    Legion said:

     

    What it do Edd. I see you've dropped all but the Mr. I didn't play Origins, so I can't say, but I did play RDR2, and that map makes me dread the first 10 hours or so of the game. I'm over these giant maps that try to hide the fact that you're walking 10+ minutes in each direction to complete and turn in quests by being really pretty on the way. Its boring, I'm bored, give me a radio or something to shoot. 

    Hah, yes. I was/am in the process of changing my user name "globally" on the internet, as I found out there were lots and lots of Mr. Edds out there (103 only on steam). I was looking for something more unique, but so far, as an user name, I only liked the name of my Pillars of Eternity character. I wish it was a FO/TES character, but I think of those creations almost as their own separate entity. Until I decide I have settled on a far more generic name, "Mr.". 

    I can't speak for RDR2, though, as I haven't played it (waiting for that new GPU).

     

    Legion said:

    I'm safe for everything but the graphics, which I just hit the minimum for. I'd like to upgrade to the point where I can play in 1440p with consistent fps across all my games. I just got Fallout 4 to run in 1440 but it dips from 60 to 30 in dense environments. What's the deal with the low supply of RTX 3000x?

     

    I'm considering an RTX 3070 precisely for 1440p gaming. As for the supply issue, it's something to do with low production and logistics - current events haven't helped them I imagine. On top of that, damn robots have been buying all of the supply that ends up being available, usually faster than a human can.


    This post was edited by Mr. at October 7, 2020 9:08 PM EDT