The Very Late Cyberpunk 2077 1.1 Patch Review

TL;DR

Perhaps I should have said this review was delayed. I picked up Cyberpunk 2077 roughly a month ago for the low, low price of $35 from Walmart. It is still listed at that price as of this writing.

Because of that price, I decided to give the game a try and see what was going on. I also decided to do one review for the 1.1 patch and another for the 1.2 patch—the final major patch before CDPR starts working on regular patches and updates.

All reviews are inherently subjective; therefore, I’ve made minimal effort to make my reviews scientific in any way. That being said, I do have some criteria. The scale is 1-10. A rating of 1 means it’s completely broken; a rating of 5 means I think it’ll be dependent on your personal preference, but it’s not particularly remarkable one way or the other. A rating of 10 means it’s complete perfection. I’m playing on an Xbox One.

Category	Rating
Controls	2/10
Graphics	2/10
Story	8/10
Combat	5.5/10
Economy	5/10
World Building	5/10
Score	4.5/10

The bottom line: The game isn’t bad, particularly for $35. But you’ll need to be a fan of RPGs, lower your expectations to somewhere around Skyrim quality, and you’ll need to recognize that Cyberpunk was never meant to be played on console.

Controls – 2/10

Aside from the graphic quality, which is bad, the first thing you’ll notice is the controls. The default controls are truly awful. I can’t think of many games where I need to make adjustments to the controls. The default controls are usually good enough for me. If I do end up changing them, it’s for the purposes of fine-tuning. However, with Cyberpunk, adjusting the controls is a necessity. The default settings made everything feel both clunky and spongy. It was the strangest feeling that I’ve ever experienced with a game, one that’s difficult to describe, except to say that it was unpleasant. As it turns out, all of the controls were delayed by 3/10 of a second, as well as having a “ramp-up” effect that was set so high that you turned uncomfortably fast.

The end result is that the controls initially feel unresponsive, then your screen is moving so fast that you almost get motion sick. Throw in the low-quality graphics, and it makes for probably the worst introduction that I’ve ever had with a video game. To be honest, I wasn’t sure that I would be able to stomach playing it. That is until I dug into the settings. This is what I recommend:

• Control Settings: Turn off motion blur
• Response Curve: Sensitive
• Turning Delay: 0.10
• Turning bonus: 0.60 (it’s a little slow, but an improvement)
• Turning ramp-up: 0.10
• Horizontal Sensitivity: 10
• Depth-Of-Field: Off
• Lense Flare: Off

Adjusting all of those settings has made the game playable. Without those adjustments, however, I’m not sure that I would have made it past the prologue.

Similarly, you’re probably going to want to turn your ADS (Aim Down Sights) settings down as well—like, almost all the way down. It was at this point, as I was adjusting my ADS settings that I first realized that this game was never meant to be played on console. I’m not even sure that they considered console players when they made it. The controls are so sensitive that there is absolutely no way that a joystick can reach the level of control that you need to deal with the default settings.

I’ve experienced several instances where picking up an item was impossible because I couldn’t properly target its hitbox. It was as if the hitbox wasn’t where the object was, or it was too small, or non-existent. I’m not entirely sure what the issue is, but it happens enough that it’s noticeable. Luckily, I’ve only run across one situation where the object was particularly valuable—but that’s kind of the problem right? It feels like dumb luck that it only happened once.

It’s a moot point now, but driving cars felt more like piloting a boat. Once again, the controls were both overly sensitive and spongy. A normal movement in a regular game is a huge overcorrection in Cyberpunk. At the same time, it feels like your vehicle takes a half-a-beat to respond to you, so you’re tempted to put more into it but if you do, you’ll end up hitting something. The camera placement could use some adjustment in the third-person view as well, but that might be a personal preference. It’s too flat. I can’t see my front bumper, so I end up forcing the camera to pan upward to where I want it to be.

It is painfully obvious—to me, at least—that these controls were meant to respond to the most minute movements of a mouse, probably to reduce fatigue. Suffice it to say, it doesn’t translate to a joystick in the slightest. The adjustments that I made improved immensely, but there is still one glaring issue with the controls that I haven’t been able to address: combat.

We’ll get to that in a minute, but for now, just know that Cyberpunk 2077’s lack of aim assist is further evidence that this is a PC game that somehow ended up on console.

Graphics – 2/10

I remain unimpressed with the graphics. There are a lot of glitches and rendering issues, sure, but I have an issue with the art style itself. For whatever reason, it seems that CDPR decided that a “grainy” aesthetic was the most appropriate for the game. I can’t tell you how much it takes away from the visuals—and you can’t make it go away. There is a setting to, allegedly, turn off the grain effect, but doing so doesn’t seem to do anything.

When I picked up Cyberpunk, I was looking for something that would be polished and that would “wow” me in the way that Ghost of Tsushima did. I got the opposite. It was more of a, “why does this game look so bad?” It’s not that the art itself is lacking. It’s actually really unique and interesting. The problem is this weird grain finish that was applied to everything. You expect things to be reflective, but they aren’t. You expect to be able to see clearly across the city. It doesn’t feel like you can.

It feels like you’re playing in the middle of a sandstorm or something. Your eyes just don’t have anything to focus on. I can’t, for the life of me, understand why CDPR thought this was a good design choice. Perhaps it looks better on a 4k screen running at 120fps. I wouldn’t know, though, because it just looks like garbage on my equipment.

Story – 8/10

The story is fascinating, and it’s what’s kept me playing. I won’t give everything away, but the story presents a lot of deep philosophical questions that I wasn’t expecting to encounter. What does it mean to be you? Would you still be you if you were digitized? What kind of person would you want to be if you knew your time was limited?

Aside from that, though, there is content galore to be found in Cyberpunk 2077. Back when I contributed to The Gamer, I wrote a story about how the side quests are so in-depth that you can complete the game without following the main campaign. Similarly, it was reported that a developer had played more than 170 hours and still hadn’t completed it. That seemed extreme to me until I got my hands on it. There is so much damn content here that it’s worth buying just for the sake of the sheer amount of game that you get.

I’ll let you know if I ever get around to beating the campaign without actually playing the main storyline. The story is what shines with Cyberpunk, and it’s worth dealing with some of the issues just to see it.

I saw an article that claimed Cyberpunk would make a good movie. I have to agree with that assessment. In some ways, I think it would make a better movie than a video game.

For one thing, if Cyberpunk were a movie, you wouldn’t have to deal with hundreds of random calls from random characters—or overlapping dialogue and poor sound design.

Combat – 5.5/10

The combat in Cyberpunk is…okay. I like to think of myself as an experienced, nay, accomplished FPS player. I play every shooter on the hardest difficulty and can complete it—with the notable exception of Doom (I don’t understand that one). As such, I’m playing Cyberpunk on “Very Hard” difficulty. I expected that the combat aspect of it would be second nature and that my 20 years of training on various virtual battlefields would assist me here as they had everywhere else.

I was wrong. I’ve found it nearly impossible to play the way that I normally do. The aiming just requires more accuracy than my controller (I’m blaming the controller) will give me. I joke, but Cyberpunk really does demand a higher degree of accuracy than any other game I’ve played, and it does nothing to help you. There is an auto-lean mechanic that is nice for shooting from cover, but there is also more recoil “creep” than you’re probably used to as well. It’s like playing Mass Effect 1, but the aiming never gets better. As I’ve said before, this wouldn’t be an issue if I were using a mouse, but I’m not. Between the standard swaying of the crosshairs, flinching when getting shot, and the lack of granular control in my joystick, I’ve pretty much stopped trying to play Cyberpunk as a shooter.

The nice thing about Cyberpunk, though, is that you have about a million ways to kill enemies and get to your objective. I’ve adopted an assassin style of gameplay consisting of a lot of sneaking around, frying electronics, and using tech to my advantage. It also requires a lot of patience. Perhaps more than you are willing to deal with.

It is disappointing that the combat in Cyberpunk is so vastly different from other games like it, but I’ve found that, because I can’t play it as a shooter, there are a ton of ways to reach your objective. In other words, the variety makes up for it being a terrible shooter.

That being said, if the much-rumored multiplayer ever comes, this is going to be a much bigger problem than it is now.

Economy – 5/10

This will be quick and to the point. The economy in Cyberpunk is worthless. “Selling anything feels like a trip to GameStop. It’s just not worth it unless you aren’t in it for the money.” That’s the note that I wrote after trying to trade and sell dozens of guns.

It literally feels like GameStop. You’ll dump 6 decent guns and get maybe 2,000 Euro Dollars (the in-game currency) for them. Sounds alright, right? Then you try to buy a gun, and you find out it costs 2,500 Euro Dollars to buy the worst of the guns you just sold.

The good thing is, you’ll consistently find hundreds of Euro Dollars just kind of laying around.

Perhaps the developers are trying to make some commentary on the capitalist economic system or something. I’m not sure. What I do know is that whatever they were going for doesn’t make a lick of sense. Your typical method of making money—through trading gear and upgrading to better stuff—is an exercise in futility. It’s weirdly balanced out, though, because huge amounts of money are lying around—literally, in some cases.

World Building – 5/10

There is potential here. I don’t think that I’ve ever played a game that really makes me feel like I could get totally lost just trying to go from point A to point B—in a good way. Walking around Night City, you really feel like you’re in this vast metropolis that never ends. There are tons of alleyways, sidewalks, pedestrian bridges, ladders, doors, and quest givers to interact with. It’s almost overwhelming, and it shows where games can go.

However, as it exists now, the streets are empty. The city feels like a ghost town. On the one hand, you have the aesthetic of this mega-city full of millions of people. On the other hand, you’ll see fewer than a dozen cars driving on the streets, and perhaps a baker’s dozen pedestrians walking around. It’s a clash that causes some degree of cognitive-dissonance throughout the gameplay.

Increasing either the number of NPCs or the number and variety of vehicles could help out here. Now that I think about it, I have yet to really run into traffic that’s bad enough that I need to go slower than 80 mph.

The story really helps prop everything up, but the fact that the streets are empty can’t be escaped. It breaks the immersion.

Conclusion

Overall, I’m enjoying myself. I think that the game is going to continuously get better as time goes on. Because of the sheer amount of content present in Cyberpunk, I’m not worried about getting bored any time soon.

If I think of Cyberpunk as a game that came out in 2011, I’m reasonably happy with it. This isn’t at all what we were expecting before it was released. This was supposed to be the game that ushered next-gen graphics, content, and gameplay experience. It’s just not.

It is, however, completely worth spending $35 to experience. As I said, I fully expect it to get better as time goes on. If it were still selling for $60—or even $45—I would say it’s not worth it, but for the current price, I’d recommend it if you’re a fan of RPGs. You’ll just need to go into it knowing what you’re dealing with.

Opinion: You’re Going To Miss Mass Effect’s Bouncy Mako

Mass Effect: Legendary Edition will be released May 14. With it, we will get better graphics, access to all of the DLC from the original trilogy, and ill-advised changes to the Mako. I was at my gaming prime—16 years-old—in 2007 when Mass Effect 1 was released. I remember the commercials as if they had interrupted a YouTube video yesterday. We see Shephard on a ship, flying over the surface of a planet, light from the local star dancing across the bridge. A button is pressed, and down comes the Mako, ready to take you into action. It was awe-inspiring. It lit the imagination ablaze with possibilities of what you’d find on the surface. The Mako truly set the stage for everything Mass Effect.

You’ll find no love for the Mako today, though. Fourteen years after the game was first released, people have a (faulty) memory of the Mako as one of the worst vehicles in gaming history. You’ll see myriad complaints about the handling of the invisible tank that you drive around on various planets. I’ve even seen someone compare it to a bouncy castle on wheels. The thing that everyone is missing, though, is that the “broken” feel of the Mako actually reminded you that you’re playing a futuristic space game. Without the Mako—and its low gravity physics—the entire Mass Effect universe’s atmosphere is broken.

The ability to drive around the maps of Mass Effect was part of what set the stage for the epic space opera that nearly every RPG fan has come to know and love. The towering mountains that ringed the play area gave you a sense of scale that, I would argue, has been missing in every game since. You truly felt like you were on another planet when you were driving around. That’s to say nothing of the hellscape of one of the missions, where it was possible to drive into lava and die.

It was just fun to drive almost vertically up the side of a mountain and jumping off of it, if nothing else. I distinctly remember driving as fast as I could at one of the many little bumps in the terrain just so that I could see how much air I could catch, for example. If you haven’t experienced it, please do yourself a favor and pick up the 2007 version of Mass Effect before the Legendary Edition ruins it for you. Because if I’m honest, I remember more about driving around in ME:1 than any other part of the game.

This was the true star of the #MassEffect trilogy. Please tell me you didn't turn the MAKO into a brick on wheels! I want to climb mountains and jump 1,000 feet again!#SavetheMAKO#MassEffectLegendaryEdition https://t.co/joexO3CwQh pic.twitter.com/gJizMgwYQt

— Michael Lopez (aka The Wolf's Gameboard) (@Thewolf_1120) February 2, 2021

This is why I was disappointed to hear that the Mako would become a watered-down version of itself in Mass Effect: Legendary Edition. Yes, it will appease the vocal majority of people who remember all of the bad parts of driving the Mako. However, I doubt that anyone would say that using the franchise’s one other vehicle, the Nomad, is actually fun. The Nomad is fine for getting from place to place, but it feels sluggish and heavy. You don’t use it for the sake of using it. You use it because it’s the only way to get to a fast-travel point.

From what I’ve gathered, the updated Mako is going to handle more like the Nomad. It’ll be less bouncy. It’ll be slower. It’ll feel more like a tank than a weightless space truck on a low-gravity planet with a canon strapped to its roof. I sincerely believe—and I’ve been saying this for weeks—that everyone is going to miss the Mako when they get their hands on this new version. That is unless you enjoy scanning planets rather than actually exploring them.

Here’s hoping the outcry is loud enough that the Mako is returned to its whimsical, physics-defying glory.

 

Opinion: Hogwarts Legacy Is A Turning Point For Games Journalism

Correction: it was originally reported that Troy Leavitt’s role on the project was lead designer.

He title was, in fact, senior producer.

It’s almost like GamerGate 2.0. The problem, as I see it, is that we as journalists have a choice to make. We can either hold fast to the tenants of journalism or abandon those tenants in favor of activism. What tenants are those? In general—although you can see those that I hold—a journalist should have respect for the facts and the public’s right to the truth. In so far as that is concerned, Hogwarts Legacy is a turning point for journalism.

Unfortunately, I have yet to read an article that doesn’t frame former senior producer Troy Leavitt’s views as bigoted, hateful, or otherwise objectionable. Instead, the salient points of Leavitt’s arguments—as expressed on YouTube—are obscured by using, ironically, only his video titles.

All you see is “In Defense of John Lasseter” and “Nolan Bushnell Did Nothing Wrong.” As the reading public, you don’t see that Leavitt’s “defense” of Lasseter was to hope that he learns and seeks forgiveness from those he wronged. You don’t see that Bushnell’s ex-employees are outraged at the reporting that seeks to paint him as a “toxic” employer. On that last point, a recent report on Hogwarts Legacy from Kotaku said, “Kotaku’s reporting found [Nolan Bushnell] to have fostered a toxic work environment for women.”

However, the article that Kotaku links to as evidence of this environment quoted one of those women as saying, “It’s drive-by assassination…There’s a collective anger amongst us toward the individuals who made this [Atari’s environment] a big deal.”

If you were a blogger or an amateur reporter, you could be forgiven for not taking the time to investigate your subject—or neglecting to report what you’ve found. Assuming you made these mistakes in good faith, that is.  

If you are a professional journalist who holds sway over public opinion, well, then the standards are slightly higher, aren’t they?

The consequences for journalists are higher as well, and rightfully so.

If you are not presenting facts, or you’re obscuring them, you aren’t participating in journalism—you’re participating in activism. There is nothing wrong with activism, of course, but that’s not the job of a journalist. If a journalist is participating in activism rather than reporting the facts, the consequence is lost trust. If the public loses confidence in games journalism because of Hogwarts Legacy, we will have earned it.

Even the standard for a journalist’s opinions is higher than for the average person because the public expects that our thoughts are rooted in fact—not cherry-picked because of our emotional attachment to the subject. That’s what rookies do, and rookie opinions are a dime a dozen.

If we don’t put facts first, some of us will even preemptively attempt to protect ourselves from the ensuing backlash against journalists—thinking that if we get out in front of it, we will be absolved of our guilt.  

However, if we, as journalists, expect to be taken seriously, we need to earn it. Not through hot-takes, but through hard work and dedication to presenting the facts.