Thread: Cyberpunk 2077

  1. #5861
    If you go back to the gaming as art and subjectivity, the person that started this included too much things. For example they claimed UI could be subjective, I could make you the worse imaginable UI and 100% of humans would tell you its a terrible UI. So its only subjective to a point. Which is the true answer. If i make you a painting, but i just punched a hole in the canvas, its objectively a shit painting.

  2. #5862
    Quote Originally Posted by minteK917 View Post
    If you go back to the gaming as art and subjectivity, the person that started this included too much things. For example they claimed UI could be subjective, I could make you the worse imaginable UI and 100% of humans would tell you its a terrible UI. So its only subjective to a point. Which is the true answer. If i make you a painting, but i just punched a hole in the canvas, its objectively a shit painting.
    That's a lie, though. That UI might actually be the most appealing UI to someone and they're entirely valid in that opinion. Even if no one alive DID think that, it's theoretically possible to envision that someone might, still meaning you're "only to a point" is bullshit. Same thing for the hole punched in a piece of paper. L:ike what's already been said, you're just completely unimaginative and confusing that for objectivity.

  3. #5863
    The Insane rhorle's Avatar
    15+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    19,488
    Quote Originally Posted by BeepBoo View Post
    That's a lie, though. That UI might actually be the most appealing UI to someone and they're entirely valid in that opinion. Even if no one alive DID think that, it's theoretically possible to envision that someone might, still meaning you're "only to a point" is bullshit. Same thing for the hole punched in a piece of paper. L:ike what's already been said, you're just completely unimaginative and confusing that for objectivity.
    If my kid draws a t-rex delivering pizza but they just wrote the letter A is that a t-rex? Objectively no it is not. Subjectively though it is a t-rex because that is how it was interpreted. Is it equal to the Mona Lisa? Objectively no. But it maybe be viewed as equal in their eyes. Isn't your argument saying that Cyberpunk 2077 is an MMO because it is art and can't objectively be defined? Even though we know it isn't an MMO it has to be called one because "anyone who has yet to be born" could call it that. So thus it becomes that.

    What about that artist that sold an invisible sculpture? Objectively it doesn't exist and isn't real. However it still sold for more €15,000 double its valuation. Clearly someone has found a subjective meaning but it doesn't change what it really is. Nothing.
    Last edited by rhorle; 2022-09-29 at 03:00 AM.
    "Man is his own star. His acts are his angels, good or ill, While his fatal shadows walk silently beside him."-Rhyme of the Primeval Paradine AFC 54
    You know a community is bad when moderators lock a thread because "...this isnt the place to talk about it either seeing as it will get trolled..."

  4. #5864
    Quote Originally Posted by Maljinwo View Post
    I thought this thread was about cyberpunk
    Yeah kinda disappointed after seeing this thread come back to life, all the complaining about this game should have been finished years ago.

    Was expecting more people to be talking about the awesome anime they just popped out of no where. Reminder to everyone who hasn't watched it yet to do so in the dubbed version.

  5. #5865
    Quote Originally Posted by Rendark View Post
    There's no such thing as a objectively good game dude.



    Dude are you coming on to me? Because you should know i hate ponies.
    Im flattered and all that you would think that but you really aren't my type, I prefer bad rocker boys and your nothing but a miserable little worm.

  6. #5866
    Herald of the Titans Rendark's Avatar
    7+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    2,819
    Quote Originally Posted by Addiena View Post
    I prefer bad rocker boys
    I take it back because you seem to be 14.

  7. #5867
    I am Murloc! Maljinwo's Avatar
    7+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Location
    Buenos Aires, Argentina
    Posts
    5,277
    Quote Originally Posted by Very Tired View Post
    Yeah kinda disappointed after seeing this thread come back to life, all the complaining about this game should have been finished years ago.

    Was expecting more people to be talking about the awesome anime they just popped out of no where. Reminder to everyone who hasn't watched it yet to do so in the dubbed version.
    They aren't even complaining, they are discussing stuff about objective and subjective shit
    This world don't give us nothing. It be our lot to suffer... and our duty to fight back.

  8. #5868
    The Lightbringer vian's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Random
    Posts
    3,738
    Quote Originally Posted by Proskill View Post
    This is how Cyberpunk 2077 should have been released:

    The first video sequence of V and Jackie's relationship should be PLAYABLE instead of a cutscene.

    Jackie's death should NOT be spoilered through a fucking trailer before game's launch.

    Dexter's betrayal should NOT be spoilered through a trailer before game's launch either.

    None of these things helped HYPE UP the game, they only made it worse for players.

    I bought CP77 on release and refunded it within 35hrs played, it was so bad at that time.
    Now I decided to give it another go with the Edgerunners series, as did everybody else, but this time I borrowed the game. I might buy it together with the DLC when it comes out, preferably on a discount.
    Thank you for reading
    If your sig is anything to go by, I can see why you returned it.

    Personally I didn't experience anything other than some day 1 jank, which is to be expected.
    Quote Originally Posted by bizzy View Post
    yeh but lava is just very hot water

  9. #5869
    Quote Originally Posted by vian View Post
    If your sig is anything to go by, I can see why you returned it.

    Personally I didn't experience anything other than some day 1 jank, which is to be expected.
    "Day 1 jank" doesnt excuse the shit show that was performance on earlier consoles. They shouldnt have sold the game on those platforms like they are not with the DLC which is the correct call.

    The games won me over and once I updated my drivers I stopped having crashes but come on lets not pretend the game didnt have problems. We also dont need to harp on about it either.

    CD projekt red is not the promised developer to bring balance to the gaming force. At least they corrected their mistakes and moving forward are not repeating the same shit as I said by selling to earlier consoles so you cant have a go at them for admitting their flaws and not just taking customers money and pissing people off with poor performance which is what happened and you can understand why some people would be pissed.

  10. #5870
    Elemental Lord Makabreska's Avatar
    7+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Streets Strange by Moonlight
    Posts
    8,419
    20 million units sold.

    Sometimes, the light of the moon is a key to other spaces. I've found a place where, for a night or two, the streets curve in unfamiliar ways. If I walk here, I might find insight, or I might be touched by madness.

  11. #5871
    So how is the game at the moment? Is it worth a replay?
    "In real life, unlike in Shakespeare, the sweetness of the rose depends upon the name it bears. Things are not only what they are. They are, in very important respects, what they seem to be"

    End of quote. Repeat the line.

  12. #5872
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    Name one artistic aspect you feel can be judged completely objectively. I'll point out how it's not objective in the least.
    Quality of special effects/CGI in regards of intended outcome*, quality of graphics in regard of intended outcome**, quality of props, quality of acting, cinematography, storytelling, quality of dialogue, how good an artist mastered their instrument, how good any given individual or group of musicians performs any kind of music they intend to play, how good an artist mastered various techniques or art styles. The list goes on.

    *meaning what was intended to be achieved

    ** not considering occasions where graphics glitching, distorting, and so on are intended, as they do in Cyberpunk 2077, for example.

    I'll even give you examples, but first of all;

    The Oxford dictionary defines subjective/objective as based on feelings, rather than facts, or vice versa.

    So, the Space Whale in 'The Avengers', better than Henry Cavill's fake unmoustached lips in Justice League.

    The graphics of Cyberpunk 2077? Better than World of WarCraft.

    The armor of Gil-Galad in 'The Lord of the Rings' vs the fake Baby in 'American Sniper'

    The acting of Marlon Brando in 'The Godfather' vs the acting of John Travolta in 'Battlefield Earth'.

    The cinematography/storytelling/dialogue in 'The Lord of the Rings' vs. 'The Room'.

    My performance of the theme from Schindler's List vs that of Itzhak Perlman

    My son's High school band performance of the main theme from Star Wars vs that of the London Symphony Orchestra.

    How good I can paint tabletop miniatures vs how good Jose Davinci does it.

    And to expand on this, you said earlier in the thread that Downton Abby is a 'well-crafted show', which implies the existance of badly-crafted shows. That sounds like a very objective assessment that leaves out your personal feelings for the show.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by tikcol View Post
    So how is the game at the moment? Is it worth a replay?
    Depends on when you played last, really. Generally speaking I'd say yes, especially when you played last during the early months.
    Last edited by Skulltaker; 2022-09-29 at 06:56 AM.

  13. #5873
    Quote Originally Posted by Skulltaker View Post
    Quality of special effects/CGI in regards of intended outcome*, quality of graphics in regard of intended outcome**, quality of props, quality of acting, cinematography, storytelling, quality of dialogue, how good an artist mastered their instrument, how good any given individual or group of musicians performs any kind of music they intend to play, how good an artist mastered various techniques or art styles. The list goes on.

    *meaning what was intended to be achieved

    ** not considering occasions where graphics glitching, distorting, and so on are intended, as they do in Cyberpunk 2077, for example.

    I'll even give you examples, but first of all;

    The Oxford dictionary defines subjective/objective as based on feelings, rather than facts, or vice versa.

    So, the Space Whale in 'The Avengers', better than Henry Cavill's fake unmoustached lips in Justice League.

    The graphics of Cyberpunk 2077? Better than World of WarCraft.

    The armor of Gil-Galad in 'The Lord of the Rings' vs the fake Baby in 'American Sniper'

    The acting of Marlon Brando in 'The Godfather' vs the acting of John Travolta in 'Battlefield Earth'.

    The cinematography/storytelling/dialogue in 'The Lord of the Rings' vs. 'The Room'.

    My performance of the theme from Schindler's List vs that of Itzhak Perlman

    My son's High school band performance of the main theme from Star Wars vs that of the London Symphony Orchestra.

    How good I can paint tabletop miniatures vs how good Jose Davinci does it.

    - - - Updated - - -



    Depends on when you played last, really. Generally speaking I'd say yes, especially when you played last during the early months.
    I played day 1 baby first day all bugs with my ninja 1 shot build.

    Still can't forgive them for removing the glow from the katanas..
    "In real life, unlike in Shakespeare, the sweetness of the rose depends upon the name it bears. Things are not only what they are. They are, in very important respects, what they seem to be"

    End of quote. Repeat the line.

  14. #5874
    Quote Originally Posted by Fencers View Post
    I was having a conversation with you in earnest.

    You made some broad claims, I said they were not true flatly. You didn't back up any of those claims or provide any objective mearsuments for the aspects which you yourself cited. I offered to help you as well.

    Whatever interpretation you have of hysteria or desperation is your own fantasy.

    This is still wrong. No such thing exists. No publication, platform or outlet does so. No school or scholarly work I know of practices under this belief.

    Can you name any?

    Yes, and these are not objective. You can measure number of words in a book but there is no standard on the quality of those words.

    Says who? What rubric is passed among critics to this measurement?

    David Yow, Iggy Pop, Glen Branca, ATDI, MBV, Spacemen 3, DEP, Black Fast, Weekend Nachos- these performers had total meltdowns on stage and have had those meltdowns judged to be some of the best performances of their careers.
    You were? Because that wasn't showing, whatsoever. You just said 'You're wrong', said that no form of art can ever be judged objectively, without backing that up, btw. And you can start saying that standards set by the industry are subjective, but that doesn't really make that true, either.

    It's very nice for them to have had these performances judged to be the greatest of their careers. I'm certain that, subjectively, that's true. And I'll also say that this is the only perception that really matters. But, objectively speaking, that's still not good. Didn't Justin Bieber also throw up on stage? Did that performance get judged as 'one of his best'? No, because that's a rather subjective way to judge things. But, objectively, be it Bieber, or Iggy Pop, or whomever, a musician not hitting notes they are supposed to hit is objectively bad, even though it can subjectively be one of the best performances they ever had.

    As I've said earlier, and what you decided to gloss over, completely, is that objective and subjective qualities are not mutually exclusive, nor are they any indication to the overall quality of any piece of art. The subjective immpression art leaves will always trump the objective qualities it may or may not have, but that doesn't mean it doesn't have any.

  15. #5875
    The Insane Kathandira's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ziltoidia 9
    Posts
    19,449
    Quote Originally Posted by Skulltaker View Post
    You were? Because that wasn't showing, whatsoever. You just said 'You're wrong', said that no form of art can ever be judged objectively, without backing that up, btw. And you can start saying that standards set by the industry are subjective, but that doesn't really make that true, either.

    It's very nice for them to have had these performances judged to be the greatest of their careers. I'm certain that, subjectively, that's true. And I'll also say that this is the only perception that really matters. But, objectively speaking, that's still not good. Didn't Justin Bieber also throw up on stage? Did that performance get judged as 'one of his best'? No, because that's a rather subjective way to judge things. But, objectively, be it Bieber, or Iggy Pop, or whomever, a musician not hitting notes they are supposed to hit is objectively bad, even though it can subjectively be one of the best performances they ever had.

    As I've said earlier, and what you decided to gloss over, completely, is that objective and subjective qualities are not mutually exclusive, nor are they any indication to the overall quality of any piece of art. The subjective immpression art leaves will always trump the objective qualities it may or may not have, but that doesn't mean it doesn't have any.
    You are on the right track here. Something can be objectively bad, but also subjectively enjoyable. I used the example of 70's/80's punk. Where the bands weren't trained musicians. They just fumbled around their instruments and played as loud/distorted as possible. Yet, it evoked a feeling in the listener that was enjoyable to them.
    RIP Genn Greymane, Permabanned on 8.22.18

    Your name will carry on through generations, and will never be forgotten.

  16. #5876
    Quote Originally Posted by Kathandira View Post
    You are on the right track here. Something can be objectively bad, but also subjectively enjoyable. I used the example of 70's/80's punk. Where the bands weren't trained musicians. They just fumbled around their instruments and played as loud/distorted as possible. Yet, it evoked a feeling in the listener that was enjoyable to them.
    Yep. And I get what Fencers and Endus try to argue, namely that all criteria we use to judge any piece of art are set by humans, and thus subjective, but that's simply not what subjective means. Subjective simply means based on things that are not factual. For example, this depiction of a human. It's just bad. Why? Because neither the human body nor perspective work that way. And those aren't subjective perceptions of reality, either. It's just wrong.

    And so is this. Poor Jon here lacks a pinky, his eyes are to big, I don't know what his mouth is doing there, his legs are to long and his ears are basically non-existant.

    As a drawing of a human, they're both not accurate. Compare it to this drawing. Now, there are still a couple of issues, but this is a considerably better likeness of a human than the other two, simply because... well, it's anatommically accurate, more or less.

    That doesn't mean that either Jon Davies' Garfield is a terrible comic, nor that Rob Liefeld is a terrible artist. Can I make the claim that either, or any, piece of art is 'bad' just because it fails scrutiny against objective measures, in this case, likeness to an actual human? No. Or rather, I shouldn't. And, subjectively, both clearly depict humans and work in their respective styles of art. I'd argue that Liefeld's Captain America here is a worse piece of art, because he strives for anatomical accuracy with the usual superhero embellishments of muscles etc, but fails miserably, while Davies never attempted to be anatomically accurate in his Garfield comics.

    None of the criteria you can judge art objectively by tell you anything about subjective quality, or the overall quality. None. Games can have terrible graphics, but still be good. Take World of WarCraft as an example. The graphics were bad when the original game released, but they suited the game just fine, and they do to this day, even though graphics have improved immensly since the original game was released. Some games have better graphics than others, or, if the term better offends, have more advanced graphics that fully make use of technical possibilities, which, in turn, makes them objectively better, in regards of graphics. Doesn't mean they are better, though. I'll take Return to Monkey Island over Call of Duty, any day.

    Endus actually gave pretty good examples of objective and subjective qualities in writing and TV a couple of pages back, I'm a little puzzled why this discussion is still going on.
    Last edited by Skulltaker; 2022-09-29 at 01:26 PM.

  17. #5877
    Quote Originally Posted by Skulltaker View Post
    You were? Because that wasn't showing, whatsoever. You just said 'You're wrong', said that no form of art can ever be judged objectively, without backing that up, btw.
    Yes, you are wrong. That's not hostile to state- it;s just a notion you are putting forth erroneously and based on limited knowledge it seems. The claim was yours that there is objectivity measure in the arts and media. It's on you to defend it as there exists no such standardization in qualitative or quantitative measurement of art and media.

    And you can start saying that standards set by the industry are subjective, but that doesn't really make that true, either.
    It completely is. These are made up. They are not even standardized for the most part and are totally transitory and culturally reflective.

    Show me any standardization otherwise.

    It's very nice for them to have had these performances judged to be the greatest of their careers. I'm certain that, subjectively, that's true. And I'll also say that this is the only perception that eally matters. But, objectively speaking, that's still not good.
    "Good" is a subjective qualifier. It has to be defined and defined in context to have an objective application. There is no such thing- what critics are following this standardization? What publications? What analysts?

    As I said earlier, I will write out and format (for free) a standardization template for you if you have the data or criteria for such. This is like $500k job I am offering to do for free if you are unaware.

    a musician not hitting notes they are supposed to hit is objectively bad.
    You'd have to know their intent and define the parameters of the performance for that to be true. Moreover, you'd also have to come up with a means to define this within a context relative to the art.

    As I've said earlier, and what you decided to gloss over, completely, is that objective and subjective qualities are not mutually exclusive, nor are they any indication to the overall quality of any piece of art. The subjective immpression art leaves will always trump the objective qualities it may or may not have, but that doesn't mean it doesn't have any.
    I didn't gloss over it, it's not logical or true. What you are really describing in those "objective aspects" is the value of recognized traits. This is why I said specifically give me the qualitative and quantitative for "story". Because it's not possible. I work in the industry- no such thing exists, my brother.

  18. #5878
    Quote Originally Posted by rhorle View Post
    Objectively no.
    Again, you don't have a leg to stand on with this line of thinking. You could say that the mona lisa took objectively more work/time to complete, but you can't say it's objectively better because of that. It's entirely possible to not give a flying fuck about the work put in or to have zero appreciation for technique. The fact that something can be viewed and valued entirely differently through someone's eyes is EXACTLY why you cannot "objectively" say something in the art world is better or not.

    Isn't your argument saying that Cyberpunk 2077 is an MMO because it is art and can't objectively be defined?
    No, MMO has a specific criteria set that allows us to see cyberpunk doesn't meet that criteria.

    Even though we know it isn't an MMO it has to be called one because "anyone who has yet to be born" could call it that. So thus it becomes that.
    No. You're fundamentally lacking the understanding and distinguishing differences here, namely that how "good" or "bad" something is... is inherently subjective and can never be objective. How much someone likes something or not (read: what is actually meant by "good" and "bad") isn't necessarily tied to anything. The definition of an MMO, OTOH, is a set of criteria that doesn't care about how much someone likes it or not. It's the difference between color and how much you like a color.

    You can't call something that's red "blue" and have it suddenly be blue. You can, however, argue that blue is better than red till you're blue in the face and vice versa.

    What about that artist that sold an invisible sculpture? Objectively it doesn't exist and isn't real. However it still sold for more €15,000 double its valuation. Clearly someone has found a subjective meaning but it doesn't change what it really is. Nothing.
    Right, but that's not what you're arguing. You're arguing whether something is objectively better than something else. It's entirely possible for someone to think that invisible sculpture is better than any other sculpture on earth and you can't say "but objectively it's not!" Because there is no objectivity to be had there. Just your own personal stipulations you've placed on value that blinds you and makes you THINK objectivity exists. Value is always subjective. Preference is always subjective. Ergo, what's "good" and "bad", what's "better" or "worse" is always subjective.
    Last edited by BeepBoo; 2022-09-29 at 04:56 PM.

  19. #5879
    Void Lord Aeluron Lightsong's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    In some Sanctuaryesque place or a Haven
    Posts
    44,683
    This thread is objectively getting weird.
    #TeamLegion #UnderEarthofAzerothexpansion plz #Arathor4Alliance #TeamNoBlueHorde

    Warrior-Magi

  20. #5880
    Things have veered a bit too off-topic for this thread. Discussion on broader, related topics is fine to a point, but please keep discussion directly related to CP2077. If you want to continue any current discussions please take them to PM's.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •