Cyberpunk 2077 Game play, how its running, thoughts (NO SPOILERS PLEASE)

[sulky_uk]

As some of us have taken the jump and gone for it on launch day, i thought it may be prudent to have a thread for thoughts, how it ran on your system(list specs) and if you played the original RPG, how you think it relates to that and obviously issues you have come across that dont let you progress

But PLEASE NO SPOILERS

[sulky_uk]

so, be prepared for a day 1 patch, approx 1/2 gb on GOG and 3gb on steam, it also works on the download a little, then write for ever (as Conan).

[albert]

Works fine on Stadia, I played half an hour incase a refund is required. Interested if as an existing Stadia user I get the free controller and chrome cast ultra, if so for â,¬59.99 for game + hardware is very good value.

[smilodon]

That's a sweet deal. I  pre ordered a thousand years ago on Steam and have limited access to the big TV (wife rules) so I stuck with STeam PC version. just started act 1 and so far no bugs or glitches of any kind.

[sulky_uk]

had one bug during training, but it was only as i wasn't double tapping to dodge, see no errors so far and running at full ultra on  i7 8800k oc to 4.7, 32 gig ram and 2080 on 1080p, and getting an average of 50fps, that includes full RT and DLSS...look so good, couple of screenies in ad hoc on discord

[Sneakytiger]

playing on my series x and its sweet .

[albert]

had one bug during training, but it was only as i wasn't double tapping to dodge,

Search your soul and answer honestly, was that really a bug Sulks?

[smilodon]

Five hours in and likewise nothing wrong so far. Maybe the patch did the job although I have no idea why it didn't get into review copies. I'd tentatively say if you're holding back then fire it up and give it a go.

To be honest though, I'm moderately underwhelmed. It's a decent game and worth a purchase but the hype seems to be what hype usually is.... er hype. Night City is nice but otherwise so far it's all a  bit average. Maybe I just need more time in the game?

[Chaosphere]

I'm a couple of hours in. Have noticed a few minor bugs, nothing major. The worst was an audio bug that was remedied with a setting change in Windows.

More disappointingly, the game runs terribly. I'm on a 1080ti and 8086K all running underwater and OCd to their limits... and I get 40-50 fps on the medium preset. 55 if I'm being generous.

This is at 3440x1440, which I appreciate is a fairly high resolution, but still... many games have managed gorgeous graphics with fantastic frame rates on my rig.

Yes, Cyberpunk looks pretty, and still reasonably so on Medium.. and yes, the areas are large and filled with NPCs and other fairly well detailed 'stuff n things'... but I dont feel I can give it a pass.. it just feels terribly optimised overall. Other games have just done it better, by no small measure.

Funnily enough it might be this that makes me wait, rather than the bugs. Atm I feel like my choice is either to play with decent graphics but poor frame rates, or respectable frame rates and potato graphics. Neither appeals to me.

Many with 1080s, 1080tis, or similar GPUs and 1440p panels may find themselves feeling the same way. If you have a 20 or 30 series you can try DLSS I suppose... but I'm still not impressed with the numbers sulks posted above, considering DLSS has his game rendering at a measly 720p or worse to get there.

[Whitey]

I'm a couple of hours in. Have noticed a few minor bugs, nothing major. The worst was an audio bug that was remedied with a setting change in Windows.

More disappointingly, the game runs terribly. I'm on a 1080ti and 8086K all running underwater and OCd to their limits... and I get 40-50 fps on the medium preset.

This is at 3440x1440, which I appreciate is a fairly high resolution, but still... many games have managed gorgeous graphics with fantastic frame rates on my rig.

Yes, Cyberpunk looks pretty, and still reasonably so on Medium.. and yes, the areas are large and filled with NPCs and other fairly well detailed 'stuff n things'... but I dont feel I can give it a pass.. it just feels terribly optimised overall. Other games have just done it better, by no small measure.

Funnily enough it might be this that makes me wait, rather than the bugs. Atm I feel like my choice is either to play with decent graphics but poor frame rates, or respectable frame rates and potato graphics. Neither appeals to me.

Many with 1080s, 1080tis, or similar GPUs and 1440p panels may find themselves feeling the same way.

I totally agree.  I'm running with an RTX3090 at the same resolution.  I have settings on Ultra/High with all the RTX goodies switched to the max and dlss on auto, my fps 99% average is 55fps and ranges from 50-70 while playing,  CPU is at 40% and GFX up near 100%.

I'm trying to avoid driving as much as I can as it's really bad,  it feels like driving a bus with knackered suspension.
On the bright side I haven't hit any game/mission breaking bugs and it does look good.

Edit:
Geforce experience and it's optimal settings have turned a few of the Ultra settings to High and DLSS to performance, so I gave it another go and it has improved things without any obvious difference to my eyes.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]5629[/ATTACH][ATTACH=CONFIG]5628[/ATTACH]

[sulky_uk]

hey, so i was running it on a 2080 at 1080p (UK rig) but paddys comp had to go back to scan and he had to remove my rigs  2080 and replace it with his 2080ti (scan wants the comp in original config (the 2080) and 2080ti was bought afterwards))

now steady 60 fps at 1080p, same setting as 2080

there are screenies on discord but here are the settings i have used since release. i have got rid of motion blur (crap), film grain (its not max payne) and chromatic aberration (recommended off on Reddit as a bit of a hog and doesn't look much different)

[ATTACH=CONFIG]5630[/ATTACH]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]5631[/ATTACH]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]5632[/ATTACH]

[Chaosphere]

If I put my settings up to Ultra I get some wonderful screenshots too - the game runs me a slideshow of 20fps screenshots in fact! :roflmao:

I'm pleased that you can get a solid 60 fps at 1080p sulks, and enjoy a great looking game. That's sweet, enjoy it!

The problem I have with the game is that to get anywhere near 60 fps you're -

1) Using a 2080, 2080Ti.
2) Playing on a 1080p panel.
3) Having to use DLSS, which is thus actually rendering your game at less than 1080p and just applying some fancy scaling to trick you into thinking its 1080p again.

I appreciate you're using Ray Traving, and that puts a load on the GPU too. I am not, and I am getting similar framerates '1 resolution up' with a card that I'd argue is still considered fairly 'high end'.
But only just keeping 60 fps, at 1080p? What does that mean for the thousands and thousands of gamers without cards that support DLSS, or with higher res monitors? Isn't the GTX 1060 STILL one of the most widely owned GPUs?
1060 on even a 1080p panel will struggle to both make this game both look pretty and run well. Go up to 1440p and even a 1080Ti isn't able to nail both convincingly at beyond what I call average fps targets.

I just think the game needs some serious work not just on bugs, but on performance. We've had some phenomenal looking games in the last few years, and rarely have any ran as poorly as Cyberpunk. Once again, if you all can get individually enjoyable experiences with your rigs than fantastic, crack on. As an aside sulks you've made all the right choices turning off the nonsense that is motion blur, chromatic aberration, and film grain. Last time I checked my eyes had none of those built in! I find myself generally frustrated with the game's lacklustre performance, to the point of waiting until either it is improved, or I can pick up a 30 series card. I'm lucky enough to be able to consider that, many gamers simply can't and will HAVE to play with whatever older card they have*.

Let the slideshow commence!

*I'm waiting for someone to chip in and tell me how this game is going to be the best advert for Stadia or other cloud based gaming there has been so far...although I think that is still 60 fps limited (?), there is definitely an argument to be made for letting Google's hardware do the heavy lifting here!

[albert]

*I'm waiting for someone to chip in and tell me how this game is going to be the best advert for Stadia or other cloud based gaming there has been so far...although I think that is still 60 fps limited (?), there is definitely an argument to be made for letting Google's hardware do the heavy lifting here!

Nah still sucks, I mean it's playable with no stuttering and looks good, but streaming loses some of the atmosphere, also there is that tiny microsec bit of mouse lag that I know makes you hot under the collar Mr C.

[Chaosphere]

You know me too well! :wub:

I'll give it a couple more hours and if I remain disgruntled I'll just stop and wait for it to improve, or for my eventually GPU upgrade sometime in 2021.

[sulky_uk]

games nexus have some performance stats in the following video, they test from the 3080 to the 1080ti and 2060, but its partnered with a 10700k....maybe they should have used a 7700k for instance as an average cpu when trying the cards, anyhow

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w4rgB2zb7dg