Talk:Cyberpunk 2077/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Release date

Can somebody take out that bullshit release date which is obviously a fake? Thanks 2.235.213.84 (talk) 02:56, 18 March 2014 (UTC)Andrea

I've added a citation needed tag for the release date.David O. Johnson (talk) 04:13, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

The 2016 release date was removed (quite correctly) in March 2015 (this edit) by user:Debeet. This story cites "sources" which reaffirm 2016, but that doesn't seem at all robust or reliable enough for us to report in the article. -- Finlay McWalterᚠTalk 01:41, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

June 25 2019 is most probable release date as it would mark 37 year anniversary of blade runner and was set in 2019. ALso the game funding deadline by the Polish government june 2019. 180.151.25.249 (talk)

@Jirka.h23: Rumor is not worth adding. Speculation is not worth adding. It serves no use and informs no one. Cognissonance (talk) 05:26, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Hello Cognissonance, what do you think is not relevant, we should stick to the wikipedia policy. Here is explicitly expressed, that "It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced." It is not appropriate for editors to insert their own opinions or analyses and should be aware of point-of-view. It's not my opinion, but it's clearly sourced. However, your opinion that it is not worth adding and informs no one is contrariwise the POV, for me the speculations are also an infromation. I will give you an example, in the case of cars, if we have for example a version of hatchback and a station wagon, it is for me also infromative that it was speculated over the sedan version and photos of its test vehicles appeared, but it was eventually canceled. These are common practices on Wikipedia, I do not want to be rude, but your actions could be taken as removal of sourced content and therefore considered as vandalism. Regards. Jirka.h23 (talk) 07:10, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

The game has no official release date (or even window), so I'm not sure how you add that to the article. Just stating TBA doesn't really help, so we'd need something more like "at E3 2018, the developers stated that the game's release date was still undecided", which gives historical context. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 19:59, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

How about we add the release date when it's confirmed. The context relies on the speculation being wrong. "After rumours of a 2019 release, the game was set for a 2019 release" is not going to work. If it's releasing in 2020, the context is integral. Just don't blow your load before it's official. Cognissonance (talk) 04:45, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

As I've already said, what do you want Cognissonance is not relevant. Speculations are also informative and if they are inserted correctly, they are not against wikipedia policy. I agree with what Dissident93 suggested, we can add for example "However, at E3 2018, the developers stated that the game's release date was still undecided" for clarification. Regards. Jirka.h23 (talk) 05:02, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

I mean, if the developers give an update (like my example), then that gives it historical context once the game actually gets released. Not sure why you are so opposed to that? ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 18:52, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

All upcoming video games without a release date have an undecided release date. Cognissonance (talk) 06:27, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes, no one disputes this. So you agree with our proposal, and will you stop removing sourced text (which is consistent with Wiki-policy)?. Jirka.h23 (talk) 09:35, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Stating the obvious does not make an interesting article. I do not agree with adding something that would make this a less interesting article. Until the release date is confirmed, rumor (as context) is useless information. Cognissonance (talk) 03:46, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

If this is obvious, than I see it as another reason to mention it here. Why do you think that this would make it a less interesting article? In my opinion it will do even more interesting and informative article (as in other articles), but what we think does not matter at all, it is important if this text does not conflict with the rules. And it does not contradict. Jirka.h23 (talk) 09:30, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Can someone explain why there is a release date in the past tense ("First released: September 17, 2020") when you google this game, even though this date is still months away? And why it says "Initial release date: November 19, 2020", which is clearly wrong according to the article itself, which gives 16 April 2020 as the initial release date?46.230.133.220 (talk) 13:53, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

This isn't Google, and we have no control over what Google's infobox states. Also, the article correctly states that this game will release on November 19th. --Jasca Ducato (talk | contributions) 14:05, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Cyberpunk 2077. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120809062014/http://thewitcher.com:80/community/entry/270 to http://thewitcher.com/community/entry/270

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:01, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Development

I got that from the CD Projekt Red's wikipedia page, I've also added the source and what I've did was correct. Pure conSouls (talk) 19:11, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Writer Credit

@Lone Internaut and Pure conSouls: You have both broken the three-revert rule. Please stop reverting and talk here. Pondsmith is credited as consultant, that's it. Creating the lore the game is based on does not make him the writer. Dmitry Glukhovsky wrote the dialogue and outline for Metro: Last Light, which exceeds the role that Pondsmith serves, so it doesn't compare. Cognissonance (talk) 23:15, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

I simply don't understand why it can't be seen as writer of the video game, since the video game is based on the same timeline and lore he wrote and designed. Plus in: "When I write new stuff for Cyberpunk now, I talk to them so what I do in 2030 matches up with what's going to happen in 2077. It allows them the ability to move forward and I can still create new stuff as long as we stay coordinated. [...] A couple of weeks ago I went over the current story script and was going through it, 'okay okay this is great this is great - oh by the way that person is dead. We're constantly going back and forth, we work really hard on the timeline" - I don't see a simple "consultant" work. He clarify that what he writes in the timeline of the past is built to confront with the timeline of 2077. They work togheter, modifying the development based on what each other does. If this doesn't make him a contributor on the game (so one of the "writers") I don't know what else could make him as that. He is not a simple consultant. He is contributing. Lone Internaut (talk) 09:15, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

What Pondsmith is writing is another Cyberpunk tabletop game, and thus new information has to align with the game. "I went over the current story script and was going through it, 'okay okay this is great this is great - oh by the way that person is dead" indicates that CD Projekt Red are seeking advice from him, which is the definition of a consultant, so his contributions are those of a consultant. Cognissonance (talk) 11:49, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

I think theres an obvious consensus to include him as one of the authors seeing how he is described as such in the media, so I see no explanation for your constant attempts at reverting the inclusion of him as a writer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.34.160.162 (talk) 09:06, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

First and Third Person

quote :

Cyberpunk 2077 is a role-playing video game played from either a first-person or third-person perspective.

Source https://www.vg247.com/2013/08/12/cyberpunk-2077-to-contain-both-first-and-third-person-perspective-rumour/

Rumor
Source given is CDPR's 2013 GDC talk http://advances.realtimerendering.com/s2013/ppt_Sig2013_CDPR_Characters_v10.ppt [REDengine 3 Character Pipeline]

You can read the source in Powerpoint - nowhere does it mention ~~either Cyberpunk,~~ or third or first person perspective.

Only on slide 4 does it say "tons of customization, mixed TPP/FPP" - not the same as "can be played from either perspective"

If the statement is correct it needs a proper source, that doesn't cite article that don't verify.

NB - neither perspective is confirmed in GDC article 5.198.10.236 (talk)

[edit to clarify] - A game like Halo has mixed TPP/FPP - FP on foot, TP in vehicle - it cannot be played by choice in either - that's the issue//5.198.10.236 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:32, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

I'd just say get rid of it until we know more. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 21:34, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

William Gibson

Is it really necessary for the article to contain William Gibson's negative opinion? This opinion was based on a pre rendered cutscene released at E3 with absolutely no gameplay. Moreover, 50 minutes of gameplay was released in the following months, and it turned out to be nothing like GTA. Basically, his opinion is uninformed and completely out of date, and thus of little value to the article. To me it seems like extraneous data for the article, and should be removed. The only author's opinion that should matter should be Mike Pondsmith's, since he created the tabletop game 2077 is based on.

24.194.179.228 (talk) 04:50, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Doing what you suggested is basically censorship and is not what Wikipedia stands for. Using that same logic we should remove all positive opinions as well. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 05:46, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Rock, Paper, Shotgun controversy

Why is there no mention of the misguided drama surrounding the game started by gaming site Rock, Paper, Shotgun? Among other things? Sarujo (talk) 22:31, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Sarujo, never heard of this controversy, please elaborate. Also, provide some reliable sources (outside RPS) that mention this. Regards, Lordtobi (✉) 05:56, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

In brief: Rock, Paper, Shotgun released a couple of articles not long after E3 that heavily criticised Cyberpunk 2077 for both "weak gunplay and unimaginative stereotypes" and allegedly "contributing to transphobia." Not long after, a number of other games journalism website pick-up on the stories. Shortly thereafter, these websites (and articles) were countered by a number of reputable YouTube video game content creators such as The Quartering, Cleanprincegaming, and YongYea who accused the journalists of exaggerating, or otherwise fabricating, issues in order to stir controversy and fake outrage. From here, it spiralled out of control, due in part to a tangentially-related concurrent issue where a CNET journalist wrote a "hit piece" targetting several content creators (including those previously named) before approaching their channel advertisers in an effort to get them demonitised. Eventually, even CDPR and Mike Pondsmith got involved.

It's all a bit complicated, but it's certainly something that should be addressed in the article. --Jasca Ducato (talk | contributions) 14:52, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

There has been a lot of stir surrounding criticism for Cyberpunk 2077 after E3, but this particular issue doesn't seem to have received much attention in the mainstream media. If I get this correctly, both Daily Dot and RPS quote tweets and added their own opinion to criticise just one promotional image, the creator's explanation, and the combined lack of context. The issue became a one-liner in a larger pile of issues/criticism presented by PC Gamer, coupled with Pondsmith's response. YouTubers are generally not considered reliable sources, so we would not include them here. Maybe we can have a sentence regarding post-showcase criticism for Cyberpunk 2077, of which this would be a part, but I think putting major emphasis on this specific, short-lived issue, which revolved around one promotional image, appears to be undue weight. Lordtobi (✉) 21:03, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Complicated is an understatement. Here are a few sources discusing the controversy...

Here is CNET's "hit piece" article "Meet the angry gaming YouTubers who turn outrage into views", and is the article made going after YouTube content creators defending the game. "Gamergate’s Latest Targets Are Cyberpunk 2077’s Critics"

@Lordtobi To clarify, I wasn't suggesting we use the YouTube content creators as a source; it is simply a case that the issue of YouTubers being "targeted" has snowballed out of this Cyberpunk 2077 criticism. If possible, this should be referenced but I can easily believe that the journalism websites in question won't have covered the topic (given that they are the offending party). --Jasca Ducato (talk | contributions) 08:30, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

This outrage has been engineered out of nothing and has no place in the article. Cognissonance (talk) 18:34, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

You don't think it should be at least mentioned in a single sentence or so? We can't deny that it has received a lot of coverage. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 19:44, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

If I were writing the post-release reception section right now, I would not include it because this is about a single in-game promotional poster. The notability is at zero. Cognissonance (talk) 19:51, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

How could a single, short sentence with 4-5 reliable citations have a notable of zero? ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 20:24, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

First of all, they are all cannibalizing each other's material (which is how they inflate this unimportant subject to such a level), so it wouldn't be 5 sources. Second, I was talking about the notability of the in-game poster, which is zero. The same cannot be said of the first-person perspective, which is why I added it. Cognissonance (talk) 20:38, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

This isn't limited to one in-game ad, but also the claim that CD Project Red were using "unimagintive stereotypes" and their overall depiction of minorities. Refering to the to rival gangs "the Animals" and "the Voodoo Boys". And V, who is gender and racially fluid but was depicted as a white male in the E3 2019 demo, was helping the Voodoo Boys by killing members of the Animals who all of whom are black. Plus V mocking character accents among other things. Sarujo (talk) 04:14, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. The poster is just a small part of the wider "controversy" that surround this game, as Rock, Paper, Shotgun would have us believe. Despite my personal beliefs that this controversy is heavily inflated (which is noteworthy in and of itself), accusations have been made by multiple gaming sites now which should be addressed in this article. --Jasca Ducato (talk | contributions) 12:35, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Accusations with no proof of intent, based on the personal offence of a couple of activists, are not noteworthy. Only important content covering the main aspects of the subject should be in the article. Cognissonance (talk) 21:22, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

First-person controversy

It also should address a the complaints regarding the revelation that the game would be in first-person rather than third.

That's what I pulled up so far. I'm pretty sure there's more, but I'll more editors knowlagble on reliable gaming sites take over. Sarujo (talk) 22:18, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Already covered. Cognissonance (talk) 18:26, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

British English

@LoganBlade: Do you see the template at the top of this page? It says "this should not be changed without broad consensus". And when it comes to "Weapon use increases accuracy and reloading speed, which are manifested in character animations", are refers to accuracy and reloading speed (plural). Unnecessary changes: Piping open world to add a dash, hyphenating real-time when it's not used as an adjective, writing the where it works better without it (copyediting), and other similar shortcomings. Stop. Cognissonance (talk) 12:22, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Awards

I recently added an awards section for gamescom and someone removed it for not being notable enough. as i understand it gamescom is notable and have a jury. but that is not the point, my question is why do you remove it from this page but it does not get removed on all the other games wikis. that seems unfair.
Here are just some of them(and there are more of them)

gamescom is also the largest Trade fair for video games outside of U.S. and has been around for 11 years.
if its is notable enough for every other game it should be here too.

i think the best way is to go back to https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cyberpunk_2077&oldid=975910404 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rezaderaz8 (talk • contribs) 09:54, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't follow all these other pages, so "it being allowed" isn't as true as "nobody else has gotten around to it yet". I'll go through and remove them once I have a bit more time. They can definitely belong in prose, but shouldn't belong in tables. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 22:19, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
- Alright, if they all stay equal i can get behind it. i will try to look up other games for you and add them to the list. but to be honest i am blindly trusting you here and assuming you know what are you doing. i still don't understand why shouldn't gamescom be allowed in the table. because i looked it up they partnered with IGN and they Do have a jury and it was also mentioned several times during the 4 days of the event. even cyberpunk's official said that They have a dedicated jury for the award, yes. Some of them had early access to the game. can you tell me what is the rule here? how does it work? who decide that this should or shouldn't be in the table? --Rezaderaz8 (talk) 00:37, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
  Rezaderaz8, see the entry at WP:VG/AWARDS. Seeing as though their jury consists of "well-known YouTubers" and not really anybody more credible than a games journalist, they don't belong in tables. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 18:48, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

You're right, lets put Gamescom awards outside the table. the guideline link you gave me was very helpful, it also took me to God_of_War_(2018)(Good article) and Red_Dead_Redemption_2(Featured) which let me to believe Titanium Awards shouldn't have been removed. i also noticed that you removed Game Critics Awards 2019 which i can only assume it was by mistake.

If anyone have the time would you please add gamescom awards outside the table. Thank you.

- The Games Critics Award was a mistake, but Titanium Awards was not. They just seem to be awards given out at a Spanish games festival by a hidden jury list (meaning they could just be fans). ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 21:52, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Oh, i did it because of WT:VG discussion! i thought Featured meant "use it as examples for writing other articles" and i found them on the very same link you gave me. i didn't know they were wrong!--Rezaderaz8 (talk) 22:17, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

list of +36 other games that have Gamescom in the awards table (2015-2020)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shadow_of_the_Tomb_Raider https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Clancy's_Rainbow_Six_Siege https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassin's_Creed_Odyssey https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tell_Me_Why_(video_game) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gran_Turismo_Sport https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_of_Thieves https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Nightmares https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Trek%3A_Bridge_Crew https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilson's_Heart_(video_game) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F1_2018_(video_game) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NBA_2K20 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_Hearts_III https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pro_Evolution_Soccer_2019 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pok%C3%A9mon_Sword_and_Shield https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragon_Ball_FighterZ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_War%3A_Warhammer_II https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mario_%2B_Rabbids_Kingdom_Battle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starlink%3A_Battle_for_Atlas https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Smash_Bros._Ultimate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lego_DC_Super-Villains https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concrete_Genie https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luigi's_Mansion_3 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EFootball_PES_2020 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncharted%3A_The_Lost_Legacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halo_Wars_2 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Need_for_Speed_Payback https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lego_Marvel_Super_Heroes_2 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Wars_Battlefront_II_(2017_video_game) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hidden_Agenda_(2017_video_game) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monster_Hunter%3A_World https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallout_4 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metro_Exodus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_Decay_2 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_Is_Strange_2 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Mario_Party https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astro_Bot_Rescue_Mission

Why is this in british english

WP:COFAQ#ENGLISH

CDPR has it's offices in LA. The games' social media and press releases are written in US English. What's the justification for using British English when the thing in US English. In compliance with WP:COFAQ#ENGLISH seeing as the English version of this game is a US topic.

https://twitter.com/CyberpunkGame/status/1040189032364306433?s=20 https://twitter.com/CyberpunkGame/status/1172799688531202048?s=20 https://twitter.com/CyberpunkGame/status/1026113270774738944?s=20 https://twitter.com/cdprojektred/status/1138155714789163008?lang=en

Not to mention the game is in US English. See the subtitles that CDPR put on the new trailer. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ixl31324UxE&feature=youtu.be&t=81 Jackie says "Asshole" instead of "Aresehole"

The article was also written in US English way back. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cyberpunk_2077&diff=729871886&oldid=726941084

Not to mention the game is set in the US. For The Witcher 3's page retaining UK English makes sense because the game is not set in the UK. The first thing we saw of Cyberpunk was "the worst place to live in America" not the worst place to live in England I say the setting and language usage of the game and the should be mirror that of the Wikipedia article. Not to mention Cyberpunk was created by an American about America. Not to mention the game is being touted as a political commentary on.... America. https://www.vg247.com/2020/08/26/cyberpunk-2077-extreme-american-gun-culture/

@Cognissonance: . Thanks, (talk) 19:51, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Because one of the early editors of the page wrote it that way and it stuck (silly policy IMO but it's allowed). I also agree that a game set in the US should use US English, even if the developers aren't American. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 21:30, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

I say a change is justified as the game being in American English makes it an American topic. I would like to hear the other side of the fence before it gets changed though. What would the argument be for Britsh English other than the guy who started the page was British? Thanks, (talk) 03:50, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

The article is in British English because the development takes place in Europe. When a game is set in multiple places around the world, you don't have multiple forms of English on Wikipedia. Nor do you go by the subtitles, which have different languages in them as well. The best way to solve this problem is to look to where it is chiefly being developed. CD Projekt Red having offices in LA makes no difference since their European offices are the most important. Cognissonance (talk) 07:27, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Offices in Poland. Which speaks Polish, not British English. Not to get into Brexit. For Polish Wikipedia I'm all for using Polish. But for the English Wikipedia the variant the game uses to represent itself should be considered the official version of English for that game. As far as I can tell CDPR has no offices in the UK. They do however have offices in LA. If Cyberpunk were being developed in the UK I would be in agreement with you but seeing as it isn't and the game itself favors US English I say the nearest English speaking country closes to where the game is being developed is meaningless. So if we are to go off the only country with CDPR offices in it that speaks English then that would be the US. User:LoganBlade (talk) 07:33, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

UK English is the dominant variant in Europe, that's what you don't seem to understand. Cognissonance (talk) 11:03, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

I take it back. You're right. Seeing as Poland is in the EU and the EU uses British English I think that we should keep it with British English. User:LoganBlade (talk) 20:36, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

The Developer is not in U.S it's in Europe, Having offices in U.S. doesn't mean anything since a lot of big companies have offices in U.S. also European schoolchildren learn British English not American, and the official website of the Cyberpunk2077 Cyberpunk.net is written in British. --Rezaderaz8 (talk) 12:17, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

PS5 and Xbox Series versions do NOT come out day 1

What they meant was that the current gen ones are backwards compatible and will get updated visuals on next gen systems. I don't know if it should be listed under stadia or just say that or something, but they are not coming out in November. Narrowelf (talk) 18:37, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

just say TBA or something Narrowelf (talk) 18:38, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

It's crunch time!

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-09-29/cyberpunk-2077-publisher-orders-6-day-weeks-ahead-of-game-debut JOE BRO 64 00:01, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 December 2020

‹ The template below (Edit semi-protected) is being considered for merging. See templates for discussion to help reach a consensus. ›

This edit request to Cyberpunk 2077 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

100.37.127.243 (talk) 05:20, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 CyberPunk is a game about the war-torn United States after Donald Trump gave covid to everyone since he neglected Health Officials warnings

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. --TheImaCow (talk) 09:56, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

semi-protected status request

Within the past few days, since the game has launched, there has been some vandalism with 3 reported cases when looking into the article's history, this is a major game meaning a lot of people will be contributing. I'm unfamiliar with the semi-protected and protected rules but do know what they do and was wondering if anyone, especially any admin is considering putting the article under protection. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FireboltLegend (talk • contribs) 07:45, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi @FireboltLegend: Thank you for your proactive message. You can request page protection here. Given the notability of the article's topic, I don't see there being too much difficulty in getting the page protected. -- JascaDucato (talk | contributions) 10:44, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Done after my own review of the article history. -- ferret (talk) 13:43, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 December 2020

‹ The template below (Edit semi-protected) is being considered for merging. See templates for discussion to help reach a consensus. ›

This edit request to Cyberpunk 2077 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Stub request OTXBen (talk) 14:30, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. -- ferret (talk) 15:04, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Crunch time controversy

@Cognissonance: I get that you dislike anything bad being said about CDPR or Cyberpunk 2077 and want to keep such information out of this article, but the crunch time controversy is fully sourced. Attempting to limit or otherwise censor important information from said source is disingenuous. The fact of the matter is that CDPR promised on multiple occassions that they would not mandate overtime for development of this game, but have now gone back on this promise. The fact that other game developers regularly make use of crunch time is not a reason not to include this information in the article, since the key detail isn't that they are using crunch, but that they broke their repeated promises not too.

Now, I'm still fully of the opinion that this controversy deserves its own section, and that said section could easily be expanded further to detail the fan backlash that has resulted from CDPR's actions. However, in the interest of compromise, I have accepted the information's limited inclusion in the Development section on the condition that the full content of the source is not otherwise dismissed or censored. --Jasca Ducato (talk | contributions) 16:12, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

WP:POV. Cognissonance (talk) 18:46, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

As for the section, I prefer WP:CSECTION in this case. As for the promise, it seems the promise was not notable enough to be included in the article in the first place so info about a broken one is neither. Fan backlash is also something we do not need in an encyclopedia. There are fan pages for that. WikiHannibal (talk) 23:07, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Please advise how, exactly, you believe WP:POV has been breached? Simply linking to the policy means nothing. @WikiHannibal: it is the breach of their promise that makes it notable and worthy of inclusion. Also, this article is heavily policed by Cognissonance, so if something is or is not mentioned in the article is almost entirely reliant upon it passing Cog's personal threshold of notability. If we cannot agree on wording here, then I will need to put in an RFC --Jasca Ducato (talk | contributions) 09:33, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

@Jasca Ducato: Writing a good article means adding information that addresses the main aspects of the topic. You're a fanboy with a chip on your shoulder. That might slide on Fandom.com, but not here. The source does not say what you think it says, so on top of everything you're just wrong. Cognissonance (talk) 11:14, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

The irony of you calling me a fanboy when it comes to this subject and article is not lost on me. Instead of throwing unfounded and, frankly, inaccurate insults at other users, please only address the issue at hand. I am requesting an RFC because it is clear you are not willing to compromise; please direct any responses there. --Jasca Ducato (talk | contributions) 14:10, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

First, I don't care about CD Projekt's reputation. There are two types of info, meat and fat. Controversy is the latter, drummed up for website clicks. Second, the actual inclusion of the content showed my willingness to compromise. You're the biased one trying to cram in slanted language. Cognissonance (talk) 21:30, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Nothing slanted about it. BBC references two seperate promises by CDPR staff not to impost crunch, backed up by these two Kotaku references: One and Two which were both included in the article, but removed by you in favour of the BBC reference. I am happy to include the second Kotaku reference ("CD Projekt Red Boss Again Promises That Cyberpunk Devs Won't Have To Crunch") in-line if that appeases you. Also, RFC discussion is in section below. --Jasca Ducato (talk | contributions) 17:01, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

RFC on crunch time inclusion

There is disagreement on the exact wording to be included in this article on the topic of CDPR's implementation of crunch time. Please refer to article's history and the above talk-page section for details. --Jasca Ducato (talk | contributions) 14:10, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

I haven't been paying too much attention to this, but the wording "public and repeated disavowal" seems biased while "past disavowal" appears neutral. The latter isn't incorrect or even vague enough to really warrant any change. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 20:39, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
Forgive my anonymity but I'm away from my main computers. I'm of the mind that since people are still talking about it may be reasonable to use more active language 2601:240:C402:3750:3810:2D76:AC9E:AD86 (talk) 20:30, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
(Summoned by bot) I'm sorry, but it is difficult as an outsider to get a hang about the dispute. Is this about specific edit or several content fragments? @Jasca Ducato: would you kindly consider phrasing a simple question per WP:RFCNEUTRAL? Something that can be answered without combing through article history.
And I say this to everybody: personalising a dispute is certainly not helpful. Politrukki (talk) 18:33, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

We've actually managed to agree wording now, so I'm closing this RFC. --Jasca Ducato (talk | contributions) 11:46, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Release Date

Pretty sure the December 10 release date is still exclusively for current gen systems. PS5/XSX etc. is still coming early 2021, the wording of the opening section seems to suggest that it's releasing for every system on December 10. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.110.127.48 (talk) 20:57, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

To note, the above is a sock of WP:INDEFfed User:92.14.216.40. Mutt Lunker (talk) 17:01, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

The game is coming out on all platforms on December 10th. The 2021 date is for the release of the next-gen "upgrades" that let the game make full use of the advanced power of these consoles. --Jasca Ducato (talk | contributions) 12:24, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Technically speaking, the game will run via backwards compatibility for next-gen until the "upgraded" version will be released, which is a seperate version. HiyoriX (talk) 11:35, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

HiyoriX, I think what the user means to say is that the native PS5/XSX releases should be marked separately for later. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 22:03, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

That's what I ment. Backwards compatibility isn't a release. HiyoriX (talk) 22:12, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

A game cannot run via backwards compatibility on the latest hardware (i.e. PS5 and XSX/XSS) since it is the latest hardware available; it is running natively. The game will be available to play on PS5 and XSX/XSS on December 10th–assuming they don't delay it again–so we do not need to differentiate. All that is happening in 2021 is that the game is receiving a patch update that brings with it enhanced features. We do not mark patch updates for products such as this. -- JascaDucato (talk | contributions) 09:53, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

If they even stop delaying that is. -SenkoDev (They/He) (talk) 10:53, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Multiplayer as a separate project

I have removed the information regarding multiplayer in the infobox, corrected the appropriate part and provided a verifiable, reliable source claiming, that the developers confirmed the multiplayer features are developed as a separate triple-A project. However, this sourced info was simply removed as a "mess" - I presume good will and maybe that was mixed up with the backwards compatibility issue, which somehow appears to be contentious. Nevertheless, I will restore this information and would expect a better reason for reverting a valid edit. -- Ceenwubep (talk) 01:10, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Backwards compatibility "counts as release" ?

Hello. I don't want to start an edit war, so I would like to reach out here.

As stated by User:Cognissonance backwards compatibility "counts as a release". Why? Entire libraries of PlayStation 4 and Xbox One are playable on the new systems (with some exceptions), some are given uncapped framerates. That didn't count. We also didn't count the Xbox and Xbox 360 games playable on Xbox One even when they had 4K resolution support or, in some cases, updated files.

So why does Cyberpunk, whose developers have explicitly said that both versions are only running via backwards compatibility at the moment, get a different treatment?

Should this be corrected? Or perhaps we should go back and add BC releases to infoboxes of all the other games? I hope to hear some opinions. Thank you. MaksimFisher (talk) 00:42, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

The game is released on PS5 and Xbox Series X/S on 10 December, so it will be on those consoles then. What you're referring to is a patch that improves the quality, which would not be a release, it would be a patch. Cognissonance (talk) 05:52, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

This is definitely not the case. Look at the PlayStation Store for example. Cyberpunk is listed only as a PS4 game, whereas actual cross-gen games like AC Valhalla and Black Ops Cold War are listed as PS5 & PS4, and on Cyberpunk's page it has the same generic PS5 backwards compatibility message as other PS4 games. TheHumanIntersect (talk) 16:18, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Cognissonance, this is not how we are supposed to do this, per the MOS:VG. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 19:15, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

I was not aware of Cognissonance strong opinion on backwards compatibility case, but I feel that removing properly sourced edits, which add nuanced, true and valuable information, and calling such edits "a mess" is not how it should be done. If it is indeed against the manual of style, then it shouldn't be restored to an incorrect version by one user's whim. -- Ceenwubep (talk) 00:59, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Ok, I understand that it is against the guidelines to include next-gen consoles among the release platforms within infobox and lead, if on these platforms there will be only a current-gen version available through backward compatibility. However, the Manual of Style does not preclude providing this information within the body of the article, is that right? I believe this is a relevant information and should remain in the article if properly sourced - therefore I'm going to bring it back to the Release and marketing section. -- Ceenwubep (talk) 02:26, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 December 2020 (2)

‹ The template below (Edit semi-protected) is being considered for merging. See templates for discussion to help reach a consensus. ›

This edit request to Cyberpunk 2077 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Change: Liana Ruppert, a journalist for Game Informer who has photosensitive epilepsy, experienced a grand mal seizure while reviewing the game days before its release.

To: Liana Ruppert, a journalist for Game Informer experienced a grand mal seizure while reviewing the game days before its release.

Or: Provide a source for the claim of epilepsy. This person has not publicly claimed to suffer from epilepsy. If she has claimed this, it should be used as the source for the claim on this article. The current source for this section (182) does not support or confirm the claim of epilepsy. Marmo7ade (talk) 15:24, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Liana's article clearly states she suffers from seizures following an injury. While it's not a direct statement of "photosensitive epilepsy", it's not at all the same as "not publicly claimed to suffer". Some tweaking may be required but the context that she suffers from seizures needs retained. -- ferret (talk) 17:41, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Not done: I concur with the User:ferret that this context is important. Added sourcing for the epilepsy claim, in line with WP:ABOUTSELF. Melmann 18:59, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Location of Night City incorrect in article

For some reason, the official Wiki for Cyberpunk 2077 states that it takes place in North Carolina

Please change this — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.75.233.114 (talk) 20:31, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

The short info in Introduction about the game's critical reception is probably bit misleading.

This is the line I'm talking about-

> "Cyberpunk 2077 for Windows was universally acclaimed by critics at launch."

Two problems with this. First, some of the after-release reviews has been quite critical (PC mag: 3.5/5, Pc gamer 78% etc), and the metacritic has already gone down by 1%.

Secondly and more importantly, the game's performance is abysmal in last generation consoles ("Cyberpunk 2077 for Windows was..."). And just to preempt some counter args, since I've seen them many times- these consoles are officially supported by CDPR, and represent a big chunk of overall sales.

I think this sentence should be rephrased in a bit more accurate way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ShihabXShahriar (talk • contribs) 23:47, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

It will be adjusted once Metacritic drops below 90. -- ferret (talk) 02:30, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

An additional point that should be raised in the article if one can find a source for it

I've noticed that one thing that is really odd about the game is that Night City is supposed to be north of Los Angeles, but the terrain in the game appears to be inspired by rural inland terrain in the counties of Riverside and San Bernardino, rather than genuine Central California coastal terrain from San Luis Obispo County as well as southern Monterey County and northern Santa Barbara County. If any reviewers publish that point in a reliable source, that should be added to the article. --Coolcaesar (talk) 22:42, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Ps4 and xbox one techinical issues

Hello, I was wondering whether it should be made more clear in the lead section that the technical issues are on ps4 and xbox one rather than on pc as is curently implied as well as expanding on this topic throughout the article in general.--Markensoft (talk) 23:04, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Development section

The Development section I feel needs a lot of work. It presents several concepts which feel unorganized and could be expanded out. Currently it is two very long paragraphs which jump from topic to topic hastily. I think it should be cleaned up. --Deathawk (talk) 23:32, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

The article should go into more detail on Crunch time

Looking over the article and I was surprised at the lack of discussion on Crunch Time. Currently all that is said about it is "Despite the studio's disavowal of mandatory overtime in May and June 2019,[82][83] "crunch time" was implemented in the final weeks.[84]"

This does not adequately address the topic. In fact if I were just reading it I would be confused at why it's even in there. In my opinion we need to have context. There should be at least a sentence explaining the coverage around it. --Deathawk (talk) 07:06, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. Feel free to contribute to the existing conversation on the topic above. -- JascaDucato (talk | contributions) 23:06, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Recent revisions to Plot section

The problem with the revisions by User:Yuefairchild are that they imply that V is nonbinary. That is inaccurate. In Cyberpunk 2077, V is generally either male or female at the player's discretion--the game dialogue doesn't support nonbinary or trans options. Indeed, the game has been heavily criticized by reviewers for that very reason (see Engadget and Mashable). While there may be good reasons for urging CD Projekt Red to properly implement additional options like nonbinary or trans (and certainly, the criticism on that issue can come in with proper sourcing under the Reception section), it is inappropriate to use the Plot section of the article as an implicit soapbox for such advocacy. (See WP:NOT.) The point of Wikipedia core policies is that never leads, it only follows by reflecting what is published in reliable sources elsewhere. I plan to revise the Plot section shortly so that it accurately uses the pronouns "his or her" (and wherever appropriate, "their") to describe V. --Coolcaesar (talk) 23:32, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

@Coolcaesar: Yuefairchild's edits are correct. We use singular they for selectable gender protagonists in video games. Wikipedia's manual of style is against the use of cumbersome text like "his or her", "he or she", and the video game project has a general consensus to rely on singular they. Please do not revert. It'd be best, at least where possible, to simply try to reduce the occurence of pronouns altogether. -- ferret (talk) 23:39, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

I just refreshed my memory on several parts of the Manual of Style and it looks like it doesn't currently address gender pronouns, though there is a draft guideline in progress with regard to gender identity issues. Do you have any examples for your position that there is a consensus in favor of singular they on video game articles? --Coolcaesar (talk) 03:36, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

@Coolcaesar: Established practice, in WPVG. I do not know we've had a concrete discussion on it except maybe in response to occasional LTAs who do POV edit wars against gender-neutral language and singular they (Such LTAs have a clear anti-LGBT position, which I do not suggest is part of this discussion at all). If required, I can dig up some examples and search, but this is a practice going back well beyond five years in relation to video games and selectable gender protagonists. I'd prefer if you can accept my word on it, but if you want I will dig, or we could move to WT:VG and ask. MOS-wise, MOS:S/HE is a difficult to find corner of MOS that I have to re-search for myself every time this comes up. It says to use gender-neutral language, and avoid "generic he" (which is how plot started). The MOS additionally links to Wikipedia:Gender-neutral language, an essay that has existed for more than a decade, which notes that use of singular they varies across Wikipedia, with acceptance in some areas but not in others. WP:VG is an area that accepts it's use.

MOS thoughts aside: While CDPR is getting some heat for the use of voices (feminine or masculine) causing the game to use the pronouns, she or he, I don't think it's Wikipedia's place to enforce that in the plot as a kind of "highlight how CDPR got it wrong". We, Wikipedia, shouldn't tell the reader to think of their character as male or female. While CDPR has missteps here, let the reader think of it in whatever term they like. The character is ultimately gender-selectable and customizable, even if CDPR didn't get it perfect. -- ferret (talk) 13:30, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Reads like an ad.

This article reads a bit like an Ad and credits list for the game. One quick example is that praise of the IGN review is written about but directly in the title to that is '(and a few too many bugs)' which is nowhere mentioned. That has been a significant problem with this (as is often the case) while this page reads as though it was a flawless release. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mystixa (talk • contribs) 14:29, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Spell check

"Technical iussues were also criticised, particularly those in the PlayStation 4 and Xbox One versions."

Need to do a spell check on this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sebatrelles (talk • contribs) 09:06, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Fixed. That was the only typo in the entire article, so far as I could see. -- JascaDucato (talk | contributions) 09:42, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Edit warring

I appear to be in a bit of an edit war with @Cognissonance: over the development section. I have been trying to improve this and the release section and have making what I think are mostly uncontroversial edits, including changing around the order of sections and adding several paragraph breaks. He has twice now reverted my, and another editors attempt to do this. When I inquired about this asking for clarification he flat out stated "Your edits suck, that's why I revert them". I do not think this is in the spirit of collaboration of this project.

Apart from issues of civility I would like to know if we can agree on a version. This is the version I prefer, note the introduction paragraph as well as well as the attempt to focus ideas into distinct paragraphs. It still has issues but that's because I'm still working on it. Compare this to the his version which is only two paragraphs, jumps around to different subjects and does not start with an introductory paragraph. There are also issues with the release section in both versions which I would also like you to take a look at, but I think the development issue is more pressing. Thank You --Deathawk (talk) 15:14, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

I've avoided reading the actual content of your edits because I'm trying to limit my exposure to anything Cyberpunk until they fix the damn thing and release the next-gen updates, but I readily agree that the Development section needs a major update. It's been like pulling teeth trying to get anything even remotely crititcal of Cyberpunk 2077 or CD Projekt Red into this article for quite some time now. Cognissonance's response of "your edits suck" does not constitute a valid reason for reverting your edits. -- JascaDucato (talk | contributions) 15:41, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

I've left Cognissonance a warning. Additionally, I've reworked both sections again myself, reviewing between both Cognissonance and Deathawk's versions. I welcome any constructive feedback, but I strongly recommend not reverting in whole. There was some simply terrible writing in the article before, with entire paragraphs of content stuffed into a single run-on sentence and other strange wordings. I do not proclaim my use of English to be perfect, but I am confident we're in a better spot now. -- ferret (talk) 15:52, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Sony removal reason

The article says the game was pulled by Sony for it's bugginess, but their statement doesn't give a reason, and it's more likely it was CDPR shoving the responsibility for refunds onto Sony without telling them, overloading their support services. Nixinova T C 02:36, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

The prose didn't say this, only the lead. I've removed it. -- ferret (talk) 02:47, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

I've three times removed unsourced additions to the lead stating "why" Sony removed it. Sony has made no statement on why. We can guess, and there's plenty of obvious reasons they might have, but they did not say and we cannot attribute reasons to them on our own. @The Optimistic One and Popcornfud: as info. -- ferret (talk) 20:20, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Ferret, fair enough. I was just going by the Guardian article and wasn't looking closely at whether it was based on Sony statements or just inferences from the source. Popcornfud (talk) 20:23, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Looking again, I don't think it's an unreasonable addition, going by (for example) this Guardian article, which says "Sony has announced it is pulling this year’s most-hyped video game, Cyberpunk 2077, from its online PlayStation store after complaints of bugs, compatibility issues and health risks." This is basically the wording I used, "following complaints", etc. Popcornfud (talk) 20:27, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Every direct statement I have seen from Sony omits any reason. I do not believe we should use Guardian as hard confirmation that they are attributed a direct statement of reason to Sony. -- ferret (talk) 20:29, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Personally I think it's fine to report what reliable secondary sources are saying, keeping in mind that wording such as "following complaints", "after complaints" etc only establishes a sequence of events rather than literally saying this is why something happened. (Granted it's a bit of a get-out clause, but still.) As it stands the wording in the lead is a non-sequitur, and only invites the reader to wonder why the game was pulled. Popcornfud (talk) 20:33, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Actually, surely the best solution here is to say Sony pulled the game and then say sources such as the Guardian et al speculated/attributed/whatever-verbed that this was because of the complaints. Popcornfud (talk) 20:36, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

I think reporting Guardian's speculation is fine in the prose, and you're welcome to that if you want. The issue is the lead just isn't really the place to expound on it. -- ferret (talk) 20:42, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 December 2020

‹ The template below (Edit semi-protected) is being considered for merging. See templates for discussion to help reach a consensus. ›

This edit request to Cyberpunk 2077 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The following two lines state that the game was removed from the playstation store. However, according to the source provided for the second line, this removal is only temporary yet both the line in the beginning summary and the larger explanation do not indicate that the removal was only a temporary measure. This lack of emphasis and failure to indicate that the removal was only temporary makes the sentences appear as though as though Sony decided to remove the game indefinitely. This would not be the case, since the article provided for these statements, the article being number 14, clearly states (in an update to the article), that the removal is only temporary. :)

Sony removed it from the PlayStation Store on 18 December 2020.

On 17 December 2020, Sony announced that it would offer refunds to customers who had purchased Cyberpunk 2077 through the PlayStation Store, while removing it from the store until further notice.[14]

The better explanation would be:

Sony temporarily removed it from the PlayStation Store on 18 December 2020.

On 17 December 2020, Sony announced that it would offer refunds to customers who had purchased Cyberpunk 2077 through the PlayStation Store, while temporarily removing it from the store until further notice.[14] Logical OverLord (talk) 23:28, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Partly done: I've added a note about Sony's statement of "until further notice". in the lead. As the prose already states this, I've made no change here. There's no need to denote "temporarily removed", it already says it was "removed until further notice" -- ferret (talk) 23:33, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 December 2020

‹ The template below (Edit semi-protected) is being considered for merging. See templates for discussion to help reach a consensus. ›

This edit request to Cyberpunk 2077 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The game was subject to several controversies, due to the fact that CD Project had asked pre-release reviewers to only use the PC port of the game and also to not show their play through, which was further heightened by the console ports had worse performance than the PC port. 98.245.170.65 (talk) 16:00, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. -- ferret (talk) 16:04, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

This is actually already in the article already. --Deathawk (talk) 16:56, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Budget

The reception section talks about covering the development budget.

This was around $314 million.https://www.gamebyte.com/cyberpunk-2077-budget-believed-to-be-even-bigger-than-gta-5s/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.178.205.194 (talk) 14:22, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

More reliable source: https://www.theguardian.com/games/2020/dec/18/cyberpunk-2077-sony-pulls-game-from-playstation-store-after-complaints -- ferret (talk) 14:24, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

So who's going to add it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.178.205.194 (talk) 17:39, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

I've added it. JOE BRO 64 19:16, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Articles on representation concerns in the game

For the past year or so I think there's been more than enough articles that reported on the concern of those who felt that the game's advertising and CD Projekt themselves online were exhibiting what they considered to be transphobic behaviour, yet there's nothing in the game's article that highlights this. Also, and granted currently this is mainly Twitter/YouTube outrage and there's very little sources writing about it above all else, with the release of the game we've also seen backlash as a result of several journalists focusing on issues of representation in the game across their reviews or other opinion pieces. This is probably WP:CRYSTAL but if the vitriol only perseveres and more sources respond to write about the backlash towards the concern over the themes/politics of Cyberpunk it's only more reason to include it. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 14:02, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

At the very least, the article should mention the controversial “Mix It Up” promotional poster from June 2019. It gained a fair amount media attention back then, and was recently referenced in a TIME article. MiddleAgedBanana (talk) 04:52, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Time mentioned it in a single sentence, without any specifics. It's something, but also not particularly great coverage.[1] The linked Polygon article is filed under analysis, which isn't great either.[2] Three links deep there's a non-oped Polygon article covering representation that might work.[3] --Elephanthunter (talk) 07:13, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

I have noticed that the technical problems with the game are nearly unmentioned

Hey all! I think that the article should say more about the meny technical problems (bugs) the game contains. They are not only encountered on ps4 and xbox one; they are also prevalent in the PC version. And, as i will say again, we must edit the article so that all theese are added; the problem with the game is much larger than the passive mention to this article indicates. 62.74.26.247 (talk) 02:09, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

That's simply not true, seeing as it's mentioned right in the lead and extensively in the reception section. -- ferret (talk) 02:30, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Althrough i fully agree that the problem with the refunds from Sony and Microsoft is indeed mentioned extensively, i still believe that the bugs are yet not presented. This is my opinion, so i agree that maybe i'm wrong, but i think we could write more things about them. In my opinion, this fact is so unrepresented, that, the first time i had read the article, i did not immedietly understood that the technical issues with the game was the reason this whole refund mess is going on. 62.74.62.145 (talk) 12:33, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

It's not clear what you want changed. We are not going to list individual bugs or issues. -- ferret (talk) 14:02, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

I just meant that we can give more details on the techincal problems. 62.74.4.218 (talk) 22:59, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree. The entire article reads more like a propaganda ad praising the game. Barely anything on the technical issues which is the only thing in the headlines right now concerning this game. Miss HollyJ (talk) 10:45, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

---

update: xbox one metacritic score down to 54/100 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.28.44.204 (talk) 06:16, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

eye roll 2/3rds of the pre-release section are criticisms. 80% of the first paragraph of Post-release is negative. 60% of the second paragraph of Post-release is negative. The entirety of the third paragraph, the largest in the Post-release section, is negative. Get out of here with the "We aren't bashing the game hard enough". Wikipedia is not a soap box to air grievances about something. We've denoted the negative reception. We aren't going to list every bug and performance issue. The rest of the article, such as gameplay, plot, and development, would not mention any of that to begin with. The article is regularly expanded as new negative developments occur, such as the information on how strict the review embargo was. -- ferret (talk) 14:03, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I have to agree with Ferret. There's a good amount of criticism in the article. It goes over the stock drop, technical problems, refunds, being pulled from the store, braindance seizures, and fall from grace of CD Projekt Red. People seem to be chomping at the bit to add negative information as the minute it's released. And that's somewhat fair, considering the widespread coverage of the botched release. I don't think we need to go into detail with every bug unless that is what most reliable sources are doing. --Elephanthunter (talk) 05:56, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

The information is definitely there, and there is a good amount of detail, but it really does have the appearance of burying the information. At-a-glance skimmers will not get the information. The details are sandwiched in between a Reception section with pretty high marks and Awards that that are almost entirely green. This could probably be fixed with a simple sub-heading that shows in the TOC. Perception is not reality, but it is a pretty big influencer. Sure you can say it is the readers fault for not being thorough, but a grunts mistake is the fault of the leader. -2pou (talk) 21:58, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Asian culture depiction

Elephanthunter removed a recently added Wired piece as UNDUE, here: Special:Diff/996119727. I'm not yet advocating for inclusion, but we should probably dig a little deeper into the topic. Wired's piece is post-release, but I found another RS discussing the use of asian culture from 2018. I suspect there's more, but I haven't deep dived yet. -- ferret (talk) 17:29, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

@Ferret: The WIRED piece was published December 8th, which was a couple days before release. The WIRED article concludes with "the jury is still out". Your GameRevolution article says it's "a little too early to judge". If you can find sources that support this isn't fringe pre-release speculation, I wouldn't object to the inclusion. --Elephanthunter (talk) 17:39, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

That's why I'm on the talk page, I haven't dug deep enough but I think it's a topic they may have more meat once we do. I did miss the release date timing on Wired. -- ferret (talk) 17:43, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Ferret, Interesting read. I wish some of that article had discussed (or at least mentioned) the source material for the game, the world of the Cyberpunk RPG. There's a common depiction of Asian culture in the overarching cyberpunk genre, especially through the 90's, that probably falls in the same criticism. Ravensfire (talk) 17:41, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Post-release section needs work

I feel that as it stands the Post-release section doesn't flow particularly well. While the middle five paragraphs all concern something different they don't really follow on and could be placed in any order to no great effect. At the very least, some of the shortest in particular could probably be merged together. I would move the text about the reviews of the PC version right after Metacritic's consensus, if not for the fact it briefly mentions the technical issues that at present are not introduced until the end of the subsequent paragraph. If they agree can any admins please look to improve the presentation as I'm a bit stumped? Wikibenboy94 (talk) 23:48, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Credits

Save us the grief, please. I watched the credits and verified WrathX's edits. WrathX regularly updates credits in infoboxes across hundreds of video game articles to match the in-game credits. I verified all the updated roles to match the Directors and Leads as far as allowed by the Infobox video game documentation. -- ferret (talk) 02:30, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

@Ferret: Designers were removed, and to me that was a red flag. You pointed me to the game infobox template. I did not realize that the game designer is generally not mentioned in AAA games. Removing the sources is generally also a red flag, but I guess the majority of AAA video games go without them for credits specifically. It's entirely due to my own inexperience and I apologize. --Elephanthunter (talk) 03:36, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Sections 4 & 5

These sections just don’t read very well to me and seem to be a mash up of items. What if under 4 we moved the pre and post release and worked on 5 to make it more readable. I also noticed through all the changes made some things got missed where one person put in that a meta critic score isn’t good it still got put in and some information is repetitive. It’s protected so I can’t make changes and I think someone whose been doing this a while should give it a nice scrubbing especially considering what’s just happened with the filing (but not yet approved class action for the stake holders) and the refunds being issued. I was excited to get it on my ps4 but ~45 min later crash city. Just my thoughts. 2600:1700:3A62:620:910E:73E8:48AA:870C (talk) 05:24, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 January 2021

‹ The template below (Edit semi-protected) is being considered for merging. See templates for discussion to help reach a consensus. ›

This edit request to Cyberpunk 2077 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I would like to edit the Publisher(s) section because it lacks information. I would like to add "Warner Bros. Home Entertainment" also in that section because that is the game's publisher for the North American region.

URL Source: https://www.cdprojekt.com/en/media/news/warner-bros-interactive-entertainment-to-distribute-cyberpunk-2077-in-north-america/

The logo of WB also appears on the page's display photo. Liberty Eagle23 (talk) 08:25, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Not done: Please see the note next to the publisher info, which already states that Warner Bros. Interactive Entertainment is the game's North American distributor. As for the Warner Bros. logo appearing, I don't see that image, so not sure what the case is there. Pupsterlove02 talk • contribs 13:22, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

And I've removed that. We do not denote distributors in Infobox video game, per project consensus. We used to have a dedicated field for it and it was removed and distributors taken out. Only publishers. -- ferret (talk) 15:32, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

This is an RPG, change it back

Clearly an RPG, with RPG mechanics all over it. Change it back. 135.19.120.78 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 06:18, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

I am not so sure, RPG mechanics do not make it an RPG at its core. It used to be branded as a hardcore RPG, e.g. a Witcher 3 game with significant expansion of its RPG elements, an interactive and immersive world and heavy customization options. However, in 2019 (and before honestly), various signs showed that the developers changed direction and stopped marketing the game as an RPG, going as far as completely removing that label from the website and twitter account. Instead, they started using the term open-world action adventure story. After playing the game somewhat, I would be hesitant to call it a true RPG, it is definitely not a hard-core RPG and far away from the Cyberpunk Pen & Paper RPG. In the first hour, the game uses a lot of stats/numbers/dialogs/background choices and it does seem to have an impact, although the main character's personality as already sort of predefined. Later it turns out you have little impact on the open world, very few customization options available and most stats/game-values are somewhat irrelevant. Instead, it turns into a rail-roaded action-adventure shooter with some RPG-elements and loot in an open world that you cannot interact with in a meaningful way and provides zero immersion. A very light RPG at best, where nothing in the main character's journey feels like your own progression. Some sources: 1 2 3 4 5 Murskautuminen (talk) 04:08, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

@Murskautuminen: How we classify the game in the article should boil down to what reliable and well-established sources say. Forums and Imgur are not reliable sources. Gamepressure and Gameverse may be slightly more reliable, but they are not well-established news outlets, and importantly they don't even definitively say that Cyberpunk 2077 is not an RPG. They just mull over the possibility. Contrast that to well-established game review website PC Gamer, which clearly categorizes the game as an RPG. --Elephanthunter (talk) 23:02, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

@Elephanthunter: Sure, but what if the links to forum posts and imgur sources show that the game developer itself used to call it an RPG and then stopped calling it an RPG and instead calls it an open-world action adventure story? I do agree with you that PC gamer and more established sites should weigh in heavily. Yet, the official CD projekt Red site still labels it as follows, for what it is worth: Cyberpunk 2077 is an open-world, action-adventure story set in Night City, a megalopolis obsessed with power, glamour and body modification. (20 Dec 2020; 1 2) Murskautuminen (talk) 23:44, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

@Murskautuminen: Just because CDPR changed labels in a few places does not mean the game is not an RPG, or that they intended to communicate that. Genre is highly subjective. I wouldn't consider Diablo to be an RPG, but reliable news organizations called the game an RPG at the time. --Elephanthunter (talk) 04:19, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

@Elephanthunter: This is ridiculous. The developer themselves, on their official website for the game at cyberpunk2077.net, accurately describes their own game as an "open-world, action-adventure story." Attempts to claim that the game is "actually" an RPG seem non-neutral to me, like someone is trying to make a point. At most, I'd argue it's an open-world action-adventure game with some RPG elements. 118.11.89.144 (talk) 05:44, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

The cyberpunk.net meta description (if you view the source of the page) is currently set to Enter the world of Cyberpunk 2077 — a storydriven, open world RPG of the dark future from CD PROJEKT RED, creators of The Witcher series of games. This shows up in searches using Google and Bing. There's no evidence that CDPR decided Cyberpunk 2077 is not an RPG. That's speculation based on tracking subtle changes in marketing material and forming opinions based on that (see WP:OR). Instead of attempting to speculate, we should just stick with reliable source material. --Elephanthunter (talk) 06:34, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

You're looking at the source of a page behind the scenes rather than what the forward-facing page actually says to the public, and you're giving priority to that hidden information over the public-facing information. This is plainly, obviously absurd. The Steam page (https://store.steampowered.com/app/1091500/Cyberpunk_2077/) doesn't say RPG anywhere in the developer-supplied text, but it says "action-adventure" repeatedly. There's no speculation here. Everything is based on the most reliable of source material, and it isn't even remotely subtle: the developers explicitly, plainly tell you it's an action-adventure in all of the game's media. But you're sitting here bending over backwards grasping at straws to call this an RPG despite, ironically, lacking any evidence from reliable source material that the game is an RPG. 118.11.89.144 (talk) 08:29, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

I'd consider the meta description to be a canonical description of a website, and I demonstrated that search engines can use that text to describe the game. But if you want to get into the store page description, that's a good idea. Steam has the game under the "RPG Games" category [4] It's literally the first thing the consumers see about the game, before even the title. Right at the top. Further down, "RPG" is listed as the official genre of the game. I could be wrong, but I believe that is something chosen by the developer. GOG.com has Cyberpunk 2077 listed under the "Role-playing" genre [5]. Considering that CD Projekt owns GOG, that seems like an unambiguously official statement of genre. On the Sony store if you click on "Game Information" you can see the genres are listed as "Action" and "Role Playing Game (RPG)" [6]. The games listing for Xbox says it's an "FPP-RPG" (first-person perspective RPG) [7]. So yeah, looks like Cyberpunk 2077 is listed as an RPG across nearly all store platforms, even CD Projekt's own. --Elephanthunter (talk) 16:13, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

I've noticed that the genre of this game is listed as "Action Role-Playing" despite official sources stating the game is action-adventure (official twitter page, official website). A blog about gadgets that mentions in passing that the game is an RPG is not a valid source or at the very least, an official direct source stating that it is an action adventure game far outweighs it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:ED3:14C:3500:6C93:17AE:50F9:62D (talk) 14:00, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

I believe you inadvertently created a new section on an existing topic, so I merged your comment into the existing thread (WP:TPO). If that's not the case feel free to undo. --Elephanthunter (talk) 16:47, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia should use the genre most supplied by reliable secondary sources. We don't give extra weight to the creators. Them's the rules. Popcornfud (talk) 18:19, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

I feel as if action adventure is too broad of a term,doom is techinically a action adventure,but is still considered a FPS. Rpgs to me are games were the character grows and and urgrades themselves,overtime,aswell as having a large plot with a ton of characters,Cyberpunk has that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yeial (talk • contribs) 17:48, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 January 2021

‹ The template below (Edit semi-protected) is being considered for merging. See templates for discussion to help reach a consensus. ›

This edit request to Cyberpunk 2077 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Change the statement that "Four types of damage can be inflicted and resisted—Physical, Thermal, EMP, and Chemical" to clarify that these are not the only ways of dealing damage, but rather status effects that are possible during combat with effects and animations other than strictly damage. Perturbedxuuya (talk) 18:16, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Change the development section to include the similarity to William Gibson's Neuromancer. The book gave rise to the cyberpunk genre, as well as featuring numerous specific similarities to cyberpunk 2077. To reference some, the use of body modification in the arms for weapons purposes, organ modification, the orbiting space stations owned by the rich, the use of ICE to denote digital protection, the name Night City, the prevalence of the powerful corporations, the regulation of AI, the concept of "jacking in" is described similarly in Neuromancer similarly to how it is portrayed in Cyberpunk 2077, and the AI fusing idea of Delomain (if such an ending is chosen) is near identical to the AI fusing in Neuromancer. Perturbedxuuya (talk) 18:53, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:53, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

@Perturbedxuuya: I have merged both of your requests together. Take advantage of this opportunity to provide a source which supports the information that you think should be included. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:54, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Intro

I feel like the intro understates the abundance of criticism the game received at launch. It is limited to a single sentence at the end of 3rd paragraph. Amarg9494 (talk) 23:47, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

The lead is a summary of the article's content, but I agree it doesn't really provide a general outline of the prose in Reception. I'm in the process of expanding it. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 15:02, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Cyberpunk 2077 poster.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:56, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Separate articles for patches

Should there be separate articles for updates and re-releases of this game? CessnaMan1989 (talk) 15:26, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Generally, no. WP:NOTCHANGELOG. -- ferret (talk) 15:33, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Important information

As the coding glitches were so severe in 2077 that refunds were offered. Which is as rare as a blue moon. I added a sentence in to the intro about the games questionable launch, when the developer expects it will be fixed and Bloomberg, CNN and NY times references to the multiple problems 2077 had and are still unresolved a year later. It is important parents understand 2077 may not work as expected until some time in 2022. Projekt red already mislead millions. Have some integrity. 109.76.246.219 (talk) 22:34, 17 November 2021 (UTC)