Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
Always a sign of quality when your game gets removed from shelves for being hideously broken and needs three years to get good.
"Hahaha ha!"
So cringy.
In alot of ways it's true though. There are alot of similarties between the games "Structures" (Using this in a design metaphor).
Starfield does some things better as well.
Because CP2077 had those 3 years I would give the current game status tag better to them. Talk to me in 2 and a half years and I may change who is better.
It's what they do AFTER to get players back. Retention is far more important. No Man's Sky learned their lesson after a hideous launch. Look at it now. Not my kind of game, but NMS devs do listen and they put things right.
In Starfield, while the design is good, the music is bland. Too slow.
I played CP2077 at launch with a 3080/3770k using max settings including pshyco RT at 1440p and had a great time. I feel you maybe thinking of the console version that was pulled, a version that no one here should care about.
It's worth remembering and mentioning Cyberpunks disastrous launch.