General Gaming The Cyberpunk Gameplay Discussion Thread

[Captain Pickle]

16 hours ago, Bacon said:

You can shot each target multiple times. You also only need like 44 to win.

 

Now what I came here to post. BEST MUSIC IN THE GAME

Oh I know, I was just getting screwed with the no draw bug and enemies from a distance attacking and was dumb and didn’t realize it auto saved after each round 

[Phaseknox]

On 1/6/2021 at 12:20 PM, Moa said:

 

Not my general taste in music but this song kills.

Pretty cool, reminds me of the band Krewella which I like.

[Bacon]

Prolly gonna beat the game tonight. Got the point of no return mission and have done all the side quests (not gigs) that I could possibly do. Only missed two due to what are basically bugs. 

 

Also, spoiler for some random gig, but I have been having this bug since yesterday where enemies aren't like dying. Like, my weapons down enemies but don't kill them. Like enemies need to be killed execution style. Just watch this video. You'll see enemies still rolling about on the ground and the crosshairs will turn red. My guns are acting like they are non-lethal. Even headshots with a revolver will just "down" enemies at times. And I don't have anything equipped that makes it so my guns are non-lethal. 

 

[Bacon]

Beat the game at level 42 as a shotgun master. Endgame spoilers ahead. And a wall of text. 

Spoiler

Fucking shredded Adam with my 900-1200+ DSP.  reKt with a capital K. Can't say I care for the ending, but it is nice. At least the one I got. I looked it up and picked the Panam ending seeing as I romanced her and all. Prolly should have went with the Legend ending via the secret solo mission with Johnny. I really hate games with no option for a happy-ish ending. That is why I picked the ending that I did. To me, the ending is a reward. It is all about the destination for me. All I got were two plates full of shit. Like, yeah, there is a hopeful part to my ending. Like, maybe V will find a cure in his 6 months in AZ. But the player can't know that. So, I am left with no choice but to think the obvious and that V will die in the end. And that doesn't really feel all that great to know I got six months for V while 3 nomads got wasted for V to live for 6 months. Of course, they weren't doing the mission just for V, but they did the mission because of V.

 

Honestly, I'd love a DLC that expands on my ending, or even all the endings. Something that lets V live. I guess there is actually a bit of hope left for V. Misty's voice message makes it seem like he might find a way to live. After all, in this game the spirit is always right and the tech is always wrong. 

 

And yeah, no shit I didn't pick to let Johnny take over. Just like V, Silverhand grew on me. Johnny, at times, did want what was best for V and that was nice. It was a shame to see him go like that, but I, the player, could never give my life up like that, even if it was only 6 months. Maybe if the time was minutes or something, but I don't want someone else to be me, so I don't want someone else to be V.

 

There is also the fact that Johnny is Keanu. I like him a lot, everyone on the internet does, but it makes me like the character less. I don't like it when reality gets injected into my fantasy games. CP2077 is a fantasy game BTW. The Sci-Fi just magic but digital. You can basically be a spellslinger in this game if you spec right. Well, you are more like stealth wizard but whatever. Anyway, it is hard for me to not see Johnny as Keanu. And part of me feels like the game is saying, "hey Keanu died and now wants to take over your body. If you don't you die, if you do you basically die!" Fuck that, man.

 

Well, that is a bit over the top but whatever. Like V, I just wish there was some other way. An ending that would top all other endings. The ending where V wins for real. Not and ending that leaves V with an expiration date. There is no way for V to win, and that means there is no way for you to win. 'Saka can win. Johnny can win. Alt can win. But not V, not the player. 

 

It is hard to to know what the game should be scored. A 6 or a 7 seems fair, but the game can be better than that at times. You can ignore this and ignore that, but I think the game just isn't amazing. I was never hyped for the game so I am not really let down, but did want something that was better. I don't even know in what ways. I feel like there are a bunch of cool things in the game, but I am left wanting more.

 

In a way, I kinda wish I was forced into an int/Netrunner build. With how I built my character I was basically playing DOOM Eternal but worse. I used shotguns 90% of the time. I got cyberware that let me double jump and air dodge, but they sucked ass compared to how doom uses them. I mean, it was all fine, it was just nothing special. That of course was my own fault, but I had no idea that int builds were basically magic builds. It all just seemed like time wasting stuns and pointless crap. I mean, that IS how it was at first. You couldn't kill enemies like that at the start. I'm not that bothered by it tho.

 

What I really wish was that the gunplay was more special. Like, it was just your standard ADS shooter game when it came to guns. Smart Weapons were neat but less fun than normal gunplay. Smart Guns just removed part of the gunplay. Tech weapons were cool. Didn't really seem to get many tho. Loved the Tech Shotguns. 1-shotting enemies thru walls is preem shit. People like to shit on VATS. I think VATS can be pretty fucking rad at times. I like it over all, I just wish it was a lot fucking smoother to use. Now, I don't want VATS in 77, but I want a neat system like VATS. Something that makes it so shooting isn't just point and click. Something that feels Sci-Fi. Shooting feels very retro. 

 

I feel like the complaints that the game is too short are valid. But what the game should have done is force players to do all the side content that involves characters from the main story. Hell, one of the romance options is literally never in the main game. Still, even then, I am craving more main story. I honestly feel like the halfway point of the main story should have been the point of no return. Well, really a point after that but I don't want to get into spoilers anymore at this point. Maybe halfway is a bit much. Maybe make that point like 70% but with something of things I had in mind, there would be plenty of content for 50% more main quest. 

 

Oh well. I'd say better luck next time to CDPR, but they already made bank so... Please try harder next time? Or something like that anyway. 

 

Final Stat page with game time

Spoiler

 

[Bacon]

Also, have any of you played this game:

Spoiler

SOMA

 

 

Well, if you have read on. Still endgame spoilers. 

 

Spoiler

Johnny is an engram. At the end of the game, V becomes an engram as well. Well, I am not exactly sure how engrams work, and V doesn't seem all that upset about being an engram.

 

But like, doesn't that mean that V is dead already? Like, the real V. The V you have been playing as this whole time. How it seems this shit works is that you die before becoming an engram and a digital copy of you is made. This isn't a cut and paste and is a copy, delete OG, and then replace with the copy. That would mean V isn't really V. V is more like a clone at that point. The original consciousness, the soul, was killed off. What inhabits the body of V isn't real.

 

Or at least that was my understanding. And I fucking hate that. I didn't mention it, but that was one of the reasons I wouldn't let Johnny take over. He isn't even real. He is the digital copy of a real person who is dead. But then V doesn't even give a shit. So am I wrong? If I found out I was just a copy and that I wasn't even really real in the sense of what I consider real I would be freaking the fuck out. The guy in SOMA does just that. It is a super fucked up thing. It really isn't any different than if Johnny took over then. I mean, neither of them are really V at that point. It is like the suicide option is the only option for V to remain V to the end.  And that is just hack bullshit writing to me all of what I said is true. Like, there is no fucking reason it has to work that way in this fantasy sci-fi bullshit land. 

 

[Bacon]

Also, didn't have a single crash, but a good number of times I had to reload to due to bugs. 

 

I had more things I would like to say. More of the technical side of the game, but I just can't be bothered to type another pointless wall. Pretty much any critique will prolly mention them anyways. 

[Moa]

CDPR definitely seemed to have read too much into their previous praise with the side content. A lot of stuff that should be mandatory story content was put into side missions in a way that felt like they were trying to force the high quality side content thing.

 

 

Further spoiler-y responses to @Bacons posts:

Spoiler

 

Spoiler

 

I agree about the ending, none of them felt particularly satisfying and I wish there was a way to get a happy ending. I thought the Johnny gets the body ending was at least emotionally satisfying despite being sad, but the various V endings all felt hollow.

 

I also agree that while Keanu was good a Johnny, his level of fame distracted from me being able to think about the character as distinct from the actor.

 

I don't really agree that the whole engram thing is "hack bullshit writing." As you mentioned with the SOMA comparison, the whole thing is a well-explored area of sci-fi writing. It's an uncomfortable thing to think about, but I felt like the game did the subject service. I don't have too expansive of thoughts on the subject, but I definitely don't have any gripes with its inclusion in the game.

 

 

[Bacon]

It's hack bullshit writing cuz I don't like it and it makes a bad ending even worse. And because that doesn't feel like Sci-Fi. It feels like literal magic. There is no positive aspect to it in the sense that any possible happy ending is immediately ruined with such a concept. 

Spoiler

Cuz V would be dead. No matter what V dies. The consciousness that controlled that body no longer exists. That is why it is bullshit. V doesn't have six months to live. V died for good when he jacked into soulkiller. It was rigged from the start. Every ending is the same for V. None of the choices really matter then when the character you played as always ends up in the same spot. 

 

Again, this assuming the engram isn't the same thing as the original "soul". Not all that sure how it all works. I mean, if the OG consciousness was never lost then it isn't hack bullshit writing 

 

I put that face but I'm not joking. 

 

[Phaseknox]

4 hours ago, Bacon said:

It is hard to to know what the game should be scored. A 6 or a 7 seems fair, but the game can be better than that at times. You can ignore this and ignore that, but I think the game just isn't amazing. I was never hyped for the game so I am not really let down, but did want something that was better. I don't even know in what ways. I feel like there are a bunch of cool things in the game, but I am left wanting more.

I feel that a score lower than a 7 is a bit unfair, while the game might not be amazing it’s still really good despite its technical issues. I personally was hyped for it, and while it didn’t live up to the hype for me it still delivered in a lot of ways. The story, characters, world, gameplay, mission variety, music, etc. are all topnotch IMO. It’s more of an action game than an RPG which is a bit disappointing, but it’s never dull. I’m always having a good time while playing. Of course I would have liked a deeper, more engrossing and involved experience than what it actually delivers, but there’s also no denying that what it does offer is entertaining.
 

2 hours ago, Moa said:

CDPR definitely seemed to have read too much into their previous praise with the side content. A lot of stuff that should be mandatory story content was put into side missions in a way that felt like they were trying to force the high quality side content thing.

I agree, some of the side content especially the character specific stuff seems like it should be mandatory main story content. It shouldn’t be optional, it’s too important to the main story arc. There’s not enough main story content in the game, it feels much too brief and rushed.

[skillzdadirecta]

I had one hard crash my entire playtime on the Series X. The bugs were far more plentiful and intrusive in my experience. And I think a score of a 7 is probably accurate @Bacon Given the bugs the game is actually closer to a 5-6.

[Moa]

8.5/10

[Best]

 

@BlueAngel

[Bacon]

I mean, that video is comparing meat to fruit. The only comparisons that seem really fair to make between the two are the graphics and performance and there I'd say RDR2 comes out ahead. But RDR2 is basically all nature whereas CP2077 is all city, and I think it is way harder to make a city than to make nature. It is just with how RDR2 performs and looks, it really makes CP77 performance unacceptable. Or at least that is how it seems to me. 

 

And I mean, when it comes to actual gamepaly, 77 ain't nothing to write home about, but it is leagues better than RDR2. 

[silentbob]

Waiting to start playing again when some more bugs are fixed. Still, I had a chuckle with this meme

 

[Captain Pickle]

1 hour ago, best3444 said:

 

@BlueAngel

I enjoyed the video but you can’t really compare rockstar games to huge rpgs too much.  I imagine a lot more time is spent with the rpg component whereas rockstar has zero progression to deal with. Plus their combat hasn’t changed from all their games and it kinda sucks. But that’s not why you play their games.  They are the kings of immersion. Plus, this is the first game. They couldn’t use many assets from the Witcher games. It’s an almost entirely different best. Not even the same perspective. Whereas gtv and rd are virtually the same combat mechanics copy and pasted.  Maybe you could compare cyberpunk 2 since a lot of the leg work is done and they can focus more time on npc realism.  
 

I still do think rpgs could learn a lot from rockstar as something to strive for with their npcs and fluid none stationary cut scenes.  Rockstar has conversations and story in motion and Witcher and still cyberpunk are talking heads just like their competition (fallout etc).

[Moa]

Yeah, I don't think it's a fair comparison, and I definitely liked Cyberpunk more than RDR2. RDR2 was a fantastic looking game with pretty unrivaled presentation, but its storytelling and gameplay belong to the same era as Cyberpunk's civilian/cop AI.

[skillzdadirecta]

2 hours ago, BlueAngel said:

I have to agree with that.

So do I. If folks think comparing RDR2 to Cyberpunk is unfair I'll compare two similarly themed games I played recently to Cyberpunk 2077 that I would rank above it. Watchdogs Legion and Deus Ex Mankind Divided. I played BOTH shortly before Cyberpunk and I was surprised by how much i kept thinking both were better playing games than Cyberpunk as I was playing it. i almost couldn't believe it.

[legend]

On 1/7/2021 at 2:31 AM, Bacon said:

Also, have any of you played this game:

  Hide contents

SOMA

 

 

Well, if you have read on. Still endgame spoilers. 

 

  Hide contents

Johnny is an engram. At the end of the game, V becomes an engram as well. Well, I am not exactly sure how engrams work, and V doesn't seem all that upset about being an engram.

 

But like, doesn't that mean that V is dead already? Like, the real V. The V you have been playing as this whole time. How it seems this shit works is that you die before becoming an engram and a digital copy of you is made. This isn't a cut and paste and is a copy, delete OG, and then replace with the copy. That would mean V isn't really V. V is more like a clone at that point. The original consciousness, the soul, was killed off. What inhabits the body of V isn't real.

 

Or at least that was my understanding. And I fucking hate that. I didn't mention it, but that was one of the reasons I wouldn't let Johnny take over. He isn't even real. He is the digital copy of a real person who is dead. But then V doesn't even give a shit. So am I wrong? If I found out I was just a copy and that I wasn't even really real in the sense of what I consider real I would be freaking the fuck out. The guy in SOMA does just that. It is a super fucked up thing. It really isn't any different than if Johnny took over then. I mean, neither of them are really V at that point. It is like the suicide option is the only option for V to remain V to the end.  And that is just hack bullshit writing to me all of what I said is true. Like, there is no fucking reason it has to work that way in this fantasy sci-fi bullshit land. 

 

 

Spoiler

I'm not sure how I would feel about it without knowing a fuckton more about how it all worked. Yes, V was copied out of his brain. But then he's "loaded" back into his own brain (whatever this means). Except for the time when he's kind of between worlds, he's reconstituted within his own physical mind at which point it seems as much him as it could possibly be in same way people can temporarily "die" and be brought back to life.

 

This differs from SOMA (a fantastic game) where not only is a new copy of you made, the "new" version is instantiated on wholly different hardware. There's no functional interconnection between the original and the new.

 

[Greatoneshere]

Comparing Cybperpunk 2077 to RDR2 is patently unfair. I'm playing both at essentially the same time and RDR2's presentation blows Cyberpunk out of the water . . . but Cybperpunk's freedom is even more than RDR2's. I like @skillzdadirecta's comparison to Deus Ex: Human Revolution and Mankind Divided. I said in my first post once I started playing the game that Cyberpunk felt like a scuzzier, dirtier, more open-world sequel to Mankind Divided, and it made me sad we never got a third game in that series. 

 

Point is, while I see why someone would compare them, they are going for such different things that comparing them doesn't make sense. RDR2 is older yet impresses me more on every level on my PC than Cyberpunk, but at the same time I'm having more fun fucking around in Cyberpunk. I love that both games exist.

[Phaseknox]

13 hours ago, best3444 said:

 

That video points out things that Red Dead Redemption II does better than Cyberpunk 2077 showcasing that it’s a more detailed and realistic game overall, but RDR2 relies on those aspects more to help carry it since its actual gameplay isn’t very good. While it’s disappointing that CP2077 falls short in many of those same areas, it’s the more entertaining game to actually play IMO.

But they’re two fairly different games despite both taking place in open worlds. RDR2 is essentially a third person outlaw gang sim while CP2077 is essentially an action FPS. The faults that CP2077 has that they point out in that video could be (and have been) pointed out without comparing it to RDR2.

 

We all know the areas where CP2077 falls short, and we’re all disappointed by them. But it still delivers where it matters most for a video game which is gameplay and fun factor which I can’t really say the same for RDR2.

[atom631]

10 hours ago, Phaseknox said:

That video points out things that Red Dead Redemption II does better than Cyberpunk 2077 showcasing that it’s a more detailed and realistic game overall, but RDR2 relies on those aspects more to help carry it since its actual gameplay isn’t very good. While it’s disappointing that CP2077 falls short in many of those same areas, it’s the more entertaining game to actually play IMO.

But they’re two fairly different games despite both taking place in open worlds. RDR2 is essentially a third person outlaw gang sim while CP2077 is essentially an action FPS. The faults that CP2077 has that they point out in that video could be (and have been) pointed out without comparing it to RDR2.

 

We all know the areas where CP2077 falls short, and we’re all disappointed by them. But it still delivers where it matters most for a video game which is gameplay and fun factor which I can’t really say the same for RDR2.

I didn’t find the gameplay particularly amazing in cyberpunk. I would say it was adequate. I was hoping for more unique guns that did interesting things. At the end of the day, the guns came down to whatever you preferred to play with and stacking as much crit chance and crit damage on them. The quick hacking was cool but every encounter ultimately resorted to a gunfight.  
 

And i didn’t really have a huge problem with the gameplay in RDR2. It was a bit clunky but it never hindered the enjoyment of the game for me. 
 

[Greatoneshere]

1 hour ago, atom631 said:

I didn’t find the gameplay particularly amazing in cyberpunk. I would say it was adequate. I was hoping for more unique guns that did interesting things. At the end of the day, the guns came down to whatever you preferred to play with and stacking as much crit chance and crit damage on them. The quick hacking was cool but every encounter ultimately resorted to a gunfight.  
 

And i didn’t really have a huge problem with the gameplay in RDR2. It was a bit clunky but it never hindered the enjoyment of the game for me. 
 

 

I mostly stealthed every mission in Cyberpunk, and relied primarily on quickhacks. I did do gunplay when it was required and loved it (particularly on NCPD missions) but every playstyle is different, and Cyberpunk allows for that. For me, almost no encounter resorted in a gunfight unless I wanted it to. So I don't think you can knock Cyberpunk for that aspect.

 

And I really enjoyed RDR2 as well, gameplay was fine. I enjoyed the shooting, etc. in it well enough. I think a lot of people went into RDR2 expecting something else and when they got a Wild West walking gang simulator (emphasis on simulator) a lot of people were turned off. People shouldn't hate the game for what it isn't, but rather criticize it for what it is, and in terms of RDR2's simulator aspects, its gameplay is a lot more fun and varied than a lot of other walking sims. 

[skillzdadirecta]

1 hour ago, atom631 said:

I didn’t find the gameplay particularly amazing in cyberpunk. I would say it was adequate. I was hoping for more unique guns that did interesting things. At the end of the day, the guns came down to whatever you preferred to play with and stacking as much crit chance and crit damage on them. The quick hacking was cool but every encounter ultimately resorted to a gunfight.  
 

And i didn’t really have a huge problem with the gameplay in RDR2. It was a bit clunky but it never hindered the enjoyment of the game for me. 
 

The gameplay issues with RDR 2 are DRAMATICALLY overstated on this board but the great gameplay in Cyberpunk is as well though. Cyberpunk's gunplay and gameplay is pretty good and the guns, swords and melee combat all feel really good. The problem is the braindead A.I. never really presents a challenge in the game (beat the game on the next to hardest difficulty and never had too much trouble outside of glitches) Stealth is so broken in this game that it's almost pointless to even do a stealth build unless you want to challenge yourself and the boss encounters REGULARLY glitched on me.  Like I said, Stealth and hacking were FAR better handled in Watchdogs Legions and Deus Ex Machina than Cyberpunk. Game is pretty though.

 

Also the story in this game was mediocre at best. I didn't give a flying FUCK about anything happening in the game that didn't involve Johnny. Male V is the BLANDEST videogame protagonist I've played in a long time. He might has well have been a silent protagonist for all the personality he has. Hopefully I'll enjoy a second playhtrough as female V better.

 

Also this

 

 

[Phaseknox]

9 hours ago, atom631 said:

I didn’t find the gameplay particularly amazing in cyberpunk. I would say it was adequate. I was hoping for more unique guns that did interesting things. At the end of the day, the guns came down to whatever you preferred to play with and stacking as much crit chance and crit damage on them. The quick hacking was cool but every encounter ultimately resorted to a gunfight.

I don’t think that the gameplay is amazing, but it does have fairly solid shooting mechanics and decent hacking/stealth elements. I was also hoping for more unique gun types, but there’s still some pretty good ones on offer. A lot of them feel weighty, and pack a punch. It might not be the best FPS combat out there, but it’s still fun and satisfying IMO.
 

9 hours ago, atom631 said:

i didn’t really have a huge problem with the gameplay in RDR2. It was a bit clunky but it never hindered the enjoyment of the game for me.

I didn’t really have a huge problem with it either, but I found it to be more serviceable than good. Everything worked decently enough, but that was about the extent of it. I still had some fun shooting and horseback riding in it, but the gameplay wasn’t the main draw of the game for me.

 

8 hours ago, Greatoneshere said:

I think a lot of people went into RDR2 expecting something else and when they got a Wild West walking gang simulator (emphasis on simulator) a lot of people were turned off. People shouldn't hate the game for what it isn't, but rather criticize it for what it is

I think that a lot of people (myself included) were expecting it to be more like the first game, but it was more of an outlaw gang sim than an ongoing action adventure like the original which made it a slow burn. I definitely didn’t hate it, I quite enjoyed it in fact, but it was disappointing compared to the first game in terms of overall appeal and pacing IMO. I just didn’t find its gameplay to be all that engaging, I played it more for its story and characters.

 

8 hours ago, skillzdadirecta said:

The gameplay issues with RDR 2 are DRAMATICALLY overstated on this board but the great gameplay in Cyberpunk is as well though. Cyberpunk's gunplay and gameplay is pretty good and the guns, swords and melee combat all feel really good. The problem is the braindead A.I. never really presents a challenge in the game (beat the game on the next to hardest difficulty and never had too much trouble outside of glitches) Stealth is so broken in this game that it's almost pointless to even do a stealth build unless you want to challenge yourself and the boss encounters REGULARLY glitched on me.

I agree. While I don’t love the gameplay in RDR2, I also don’t think that it’s as bad as some people make it out to be. And while I like the gameplay in CP2077 more, I don’t think that it’s amazing or stands out. It’s just solid and fun IMO, but the stealth could be better like you said.

 

8 hours ago, skillzdadirecta said:

the story in this game was mediocre at best. I didn't give a flying FUCK about anything happening in the game that didn't involve Johnny. Male V is the BLANDEST videogame protagonist I've played in a long time. He might has well have been a silent protagonist for all the personality he has. Hopefully I'll enjoy a second playhtrough as female V better.

I personally think that the story is pretty good, it might not be extremely engaging but it’s entertaining. I like most of the characters too, they all have distinct personalities. Perhaps it didn’t appeal to you as much because you played as male V. Female V is great, and I almost know for a fact that I wouldn’t be enjoying the game nearly as much if I was playing as male V. And I think that maybe some others who don’t seem to be enjoying it as much might not be because they’re playing as male V as well. It’s hard to like a game if you don’t like the character that you’re playing as.

[Moa]

People who choose male characters deserve what they get. 

[Bacon]

I dun get it. I think male V is pretty good. Especially during the emotional parts. 

[Greatoneshere]

1 hour ago, Bacon said:

I dun get it. I think male V is pretty good. Especially during the emotional parts. 

 

Same, I thought he was great. His solo calls to an already dead Jackie on the phone were very well done, as were his final quests with Judy and Panam. He sounds like a generic tough guy to a degree because . . . he is. He's a hardcore merc, so he's gonna sound like one, which will sound cliche.

 

But he definitely brings a casual emotionality when its called for, but never over does it. V isn't gonna hug teddy bears. I actually enjoyed male V. I think it's easy to praise the female character when you're a man, just speaking anecdotally, but a lot of female gamers I know who play these games enjoy playing as the male characters, finding them more vulnerable, etc. than the "typical" badass female (whereas men think the inverse). So, I think it's a grass on the other side is greener thing. One side likes learning how the other side lives.

 

I played a male Shepard in Mass Effect while everyone praises female Shephard (Jennifer Hale) but most women I know actually played as male Shepard out of curiosity even though, again, everyone praises the female VA. Men and women come off differently, men might be bored by their own kind, I don't know.

 

And to be clear, I've played many female characters and the female VA's are fantastic. I'm just contrasting our understanding of comparing male VA's to female VA's when making player characters when the person in real life is a man or woman. 

[Phaseknox]

3 hours ago, Moa said:

People who choose male characters deserve what they get. 

Exactly. 
 

3 hours ago, Bacon said:

I dun get it. I think male V is pretty good. Especially during the emotional parts. 

Well to be fair I only played a very small bit of the game as male V just to check out his VA which I felt was ok if not a bit generic, female V’s VA appealed to me more and is part of why I decided to play as her although I had already planned to as I usually prefer playing as female characters in games. I plan on playing as male V on my next play through to see how the experience is with him.
 

2 hours ago, Greatoneshere said:

I thought he was great. His solo calls to an already dead Jackie on the phone were very well done, as were his final quests with Judy and Panam. He sounds like a generic tough guy to a degree because . . . he is. He's a hardcore merc, so he's gonna sound like one, which will sound cliche.

 

But he definitely brings a casual emotionality when its called for, but never over does it. V isn't gonna hug teddy bears. I actually enjoyed male V. I think it's easy to praise the female character when you're a man, just speaking anecdotally, but a lot of female gamers I know who play these games enjoy playing as the male characters, finding them more vulnerable, etc. than the "typical" badass female (whereas men think the inverse).

Female V is a hardcore merc as well, but doesn’t overdo the tough chick attitude to come across like a generic badass female character in the process. She sounds natural and real with uncertainty and vulnerability at times which I appreciate. Perhaps it’s the same for male V as well, but his tough guy attitude seemed a bit more forced to me based on what I heard of it. I’ll be able to compare the two better after I finish the game as female V, and play it again as male V. Who knows, I might end up liking him. We’ll see.

[Greatoneshere]

22 minutes ago, Phaseknox said:

Exactly. 
 

Well to be fair I only played a very small bit of the game as male V just to check out his VA which I felt was ok if not a bit generic, female V’s VA appealed to me more and is part of why I decided to play as her although I had already planned to as I usually prefer playing as female characters in games. I plan on playing as male V on my next play through to see how the experience is with him.
 

Female V is a hardcore merc as well, but doesn’t overdo the tough chick attitude to come across like a generic badass female character in the process. She sounds natural and real with uncertainty and vulnerability at times which I appreciate. Perhaps it’s the same for male V as well, but his tough guy attitude seemed a bit more forced to me based on what I heard of it. I’ll be able to compare the two better after I finish the game as female V, and play it again as male V. Who knows, I might end up liking him. We’ll see.

 

I'm agreeing with you - what I'm saying is that some women I've known as gamers a long time see the female V the way men see the male V. That's what I'm saying. To a woman female V seems generic. To a man male V seems generic. I think it's hard if you're a man to credit male V as much as female V, and vice versa for women. But if you do play both let us know! I found male V still a hardcore merc, but plenty vulnerable (to be fair I played him that way).

[skillzdadirecta]

A good performance is a good performance. I can't speak for anyone else but my personal ability to judge that has nothing to do with anyone's gender. I played and beat Mass Effect 6 times, 3 with Male Shep 3 with Female Shep. While I would give a slight edge to female Shep, Male Shep was perfectly fine. Same with Dragon Age 2 with Hawke. Male V in this game just seems terriblly miscast in my opinion. NOTHING about his performance says "streetwise merc" to me. Maybe if I played him as a Corpo he would have come off better... I dunno. He's not BAD... he's just not very good in my personal opinion.

[Bacon]

19 hours ago, skillzdadirecta said:

Maybe if I played him as a Corpo he would have com off better... I dunno. He's not BAD... he's just not very good in my personal opinion.

His voice is not Street Kid material. His voice feels natural for nomad tho. Corpo works well too, but not as well as nomad, IMO. Anyway, I think he is very good when it comes to sadness and I thought he did a good job in anything related to Panam. Which kinda makes sense since she is a nomad and the voice best fits the nomad style.

 

Actually, if we ever got another ME game without Shepard, but keep the tough soldier character type, this guy might be pretty good for that. 

[Greatoneshere]

18 hours ago, skillzdadirecta said:

A good performance is a good performance. I can't speak for anyone else but my personal ability to judge that has nothing to do with anyone's gender. I played and beat Mass Effect 6 times, 3 with Male Shep 3 with Female Shep. While I would give a slight edge to female Shep, Male Shep was perfectly fine. Same with Dragon Age 2 with Hawke. Male V in this game just seems terriblly miscast in my opinion. NOTHING about his performance says "streetwise merc" to me. Maybe if I played him as a Corpo he would have come off better... I dunno. He's not BAD... he's just not very good in my personal opinion.

 

I agree, I was only speculating why I'm noticing a certain trend. In the end, performance is performance, gender doesn't matter. But how people assess things with inherent biases does.

 

I played as corpo though and I felt that worked. Didn't do streetwise.

[Phaseknox]

I finished It. It took me roughly 70 hours to do most of the side stuff, and complete the main story. The majority of my time playing was spent doing side stuff as the main story isn’t very long.

 

While it wasn’t as good as I was expecting it to be, I still enjoyed my time with it and will play it again in the future when more of its technical issues are resolved and there’s DLC.

[BloodyHell]

6 hours ago, Phaseknox said:

I finished It. It took me roughly 70 hours to do most of the side stuff, and complete the main story. The majority of my time playing was spent doing side stuff as the main story isn’t very long.

 

While it wasn’t as good as I was expecting it to be, I still enjoyed my time with it and will play it again in the future when more of its technical issues are resolved and there’s DLC.

Yup. When they finish with the next gen versions and DLC is out, im definitely gonna play again. I loved this game.

[Best]

I look forward to the next gen patch with several other patches to make this playable on consoles.