I remember when that CP trailer came out that showed Samurai dropping off the McGuffin and then getting betrayed and thinking “what am I watching?” It clearly wasn’t gameplay, but it looked like it was sorta trying to mimic gameplay. But there is no way a game could offer the narrative freedom that CDPR was promising and look like that. So was it supposed to be giving an idea of what playing the game would be like or not? If so, why not just show gameplay?
I made a (rare from me) post on Reddit asking this and got downvoted into oblivion. Turns out my reticence was on the money, but CDPR had been working their marketing campaign so hard that many were treating the game as the Second Coming and got positively vitriolic whenever anybody even suggested otherwise.
Moral of the story: if it looks too good to be true…
OMG, tell me about it. Some of the fan subreddits are so crazy toxic to any perceived criticism even if delivered thoughtfully and respectfully. They can't seem to understand that you can be a fan of something and still engage in critical analysis of the work where you can point out strengths and weaknesses. Even if you couch it in the language of critical analysis which would say "What is this work trying to achieve, and did it succeed or fail to do that?"
The Rick and Morty subreddit is the worst, but a lot of the game-specific subreddits also fall into that category and I recall leaving the Cyberpunk one because I saw the same behavior. That game got an insane level of "benefit of the doubt"
Having said that I am checking Cyberpunk 2077 out again. I want to see what has changed in the last 2 years.
