A Smokin' Hot Cyberpunk Take...

I juuust stumbled across this article (Link:  "What if I Told You Cyberpunk 2077 is a Better Game than GTA V?" ) and daaaang, I hope this journalist is prepared for the entirety of the INTERNETS to ruthlessly mock him.  If there's one thing that the gaming community on the internet enjoys, it's shitting all over Cyberpunk 2077 at any given opportunity.  I gotta say though, I love confirmation bias and this article completely confirms everything I feel about Cyberpunk.

His first argument Night City > Los Santos--I mostly agree with.  I think Night City has a bit of an edge automatically just because of the cyberpunk genre--it's gotta have the neon, the grittiness, and the corporate overlords perched on their shiny towers.  That's always going to be more interesting than a fictional city that's a thinly veiled stand-in for a real location.  Night City is gorgeous though and I would choose it over Los Santos any day.  I do wish there was a bit more variety in some of more urban areas.

Los Santos definitely has a greater variety of activities for players to pursue (I think Rockstar is really good at making open worlds) and feel like that's a part of Cyberpunk that is severely lacking.  We need a gwent equivalent in Cyberpunk!

Who's breathtaking?  It's V.

The second argument he makes is V > Franklin and Michael.  For sure, but I feel like that's a bit like comparing apples and oranges.  GTA V is completely scripted and players don't get to choose dialogue (or really make any major story decisions) and are merely playing through their story.  It's much easier to feel invested in a character who players get to actively shape through choices.  I actually liked the switch between protagonists in GTA V--you get three different stories that weave together.

He also brings up something that I hadn't thought about at all--the main characters in most first-person games are usually very underdeveloped in terms of character.  They're simply a gun (or *insert random weapon*)-toter whose job is to slay the baddies and get better through the course of the game, but who players don't really learn much about.  V is definitely a great exception.

The argument about Cyberpunk supporting cast > GTA V supporting cast is a most definite winner.  CDPR is great at writing characters--I think Rockstar has gotten better at it (Arthur Morgan in RDR2 is pretty awesome and the Van der Linde gang is memorable), but that their strengths lie in making great worlds.  Beside the three main protagonists in GTA V, I couldn't even begin to tell you who the other supporting characters were (I also haven't played GTA V in quite awhile).

His final argument--Cyberpunk combat > GTA V combat--is also a bit problematic.  You're talking about two games with different gameplay--first person vs. third person--and also two games that were released years apart.  I would definitely agree that Cyberpunk's combat is better, but I wonder what it would be like if the game had stayed third-person.

I think GTA V definitely beats Cyberpunk in several different categories--driving, chases, and anything vehicle related is always a ton of fun.  I wish there were more high stakes vehicle-related activities in Cyberpunk.  I've always really enjoyed the heist missions in GTA V-picking your crew, having to make choices about how to carry out the heist, and then the high-stakes of the actual event and think that's another major strength.  (I actually did have the thought about how awesome it would be to have GTA-style heists/missions in Cyberpunk--like you have to pick a crew and then do a mission--how cool would that be!)

This journalist wins brownie points for choosing a title (and topic) that will get him plenty of clicks (particularly from the aforementioned folks who seem to emerge from their dens at any positive mention of Cyberpunk).