Cyberpunk 2077 Review thread - Umm....
- Thread starter CriticalGaming
- Start date
lol, posting exclusively images that play down her muscularity, thinking you'll get away with it in a game that even went so far as to include nude scenes we've all seen because they were posted everywhere it wasn't an explicit TOS violation.
There is a difference between building muscle to fend for yourself in an extremely hostile environment(something that is also contextualized in the game) and building muscle through extreme diet and gym sessions only to show off.
Abby is far from “peak” condition, as in having a competition-ready physique. That would be something more like this -
Or for a more extreme example of a different person -
ND’s only goal with the character here was having a chic with muscles, and examining it beyond that is a waste of time.
Here's a much better, much more likeable, muscled woman that we can all get behind, and that nobody complains about:
Neat, so 5 years after the game, if Abby keeps up with her body building regimen and doesn't slack off a bit, she dies of a heart attack. Great. Wonderful. Who gives a shit?
Fantastic
Now that I finally got a Series X (well, will have it once it arrives at Best Buy next Saturday), I figured a thread that was 44 pages long might have some decent information about how the game runs and whatnot, especially since it dropped in price so quickly.
Clearly I must have clicked on the wrong thread though. Somehow the link keeps bringing me back to The Last of Us 2 thread where everyone argued about Abby being buff...
Anyone else having this problem? Do I need to create a ticket for IT maybe?
Clearly I must have clicked on the wrong thread though. Somehow the link keeps bringing me back to The Last of Us 2 thread where everyone argued about Abby being buff...
Anyone else having this problem? Do I need to create a ticket for IT maybe?
To sorta answer your question, I THINK that the PS5 and new Xbox, XboxX, Sexbox (what are we calling this?) are currently just the last-gen versions doing backward compatibility right now. So playing Cyberpunk on a next-gen system is kinda pointless.
It's been very strange. Since I finally got the Series X with it being sold out, I've looked at buying games for it. A LOT of the games being marked as being for the Series X are the Xbox One versions. I don't know if you buy the Xbox One version and all the upgrades are "downloaded patches" or what. The only game I've seen that was strictly for the Series X and not playable on the One was NBA2K21. Every other game at least that I've seen have been for both...
It's very strange and confusing
- Feb 7, 2011
- 7,916
- 2,280
- 118
- Country
- 'Merica
- Gender
- 3 children in a trench coat
If you aren't playing it on PC then don't bother, and the PC version still has issues, it's just not as bad as the console versions.
If you really want to play it give it like a year.
- Feb 7, 2011
- 7,916
- 2,280
- 118
- Country
- 'Merica
- Gender
- 3 children in a trench coat
From what I've heard apparently the interface is really confusing since it will play both Xbone and Xsex games and a lot of the Xbone games get "free upgrades." Apparently the store defaults to the Xbone version unless you specify that you want the Xsex version. Can't really give you a more definite answer than that since I don't have either console, but I know that people were complaining about the store interface causing them to accidentally download the previous gen versions of games (and apparently this was an issue on both the Xsex and PS5, so way to both drop the ball).
From what i've heard, the next gan consoles are playing Cyberpunk about the same as a PC is. Fairly decently, but still stuffed with bugs. However the next gen systems seem to make the game playable so there is that much and the game as seen a few patched including a big one last night that have only worked out more problems.
I'd still probably just wait for sale though.
My thinking was I was going to wait. Right now it's on sale for $30 but that's the Xbox One version (and a specific Series X version doesn't seem to actually exist). I don't know if a specific Series X edition will ever exist but I may end up waiting no matter what as I figure there will likely be a GotY edition at some point down the road.
Maybe once I have the console in my hand, the "Xbox One" vs "Xbox Series X" things will make a bit more sense.
As long as you're buying a game that comes in a XboxX (or PS5) box, it should be that version of the game. Looking at Wikipedia, Cyberpunk technically releases on XboxX/PS5 in 2021. Even if you go to Amazon, you can't buy a next-gen copy of Cyberpunk yet because it hasn't released yet on those consoles. I'd wait for the next-gen version to release if you wanna play the next-gen version of the game (assuming your don't have a gaming PC obviously).
OK, that's good to know. That was my instinct was that the Xbox One version will play on the Series X and it will play much better and smoother but none of those games are "TECHNICALLY" Series X games. It's more like a upgraded version of the Xbox One that you're playing.
Maybe some companies will release specific Series X versions or maybe at least for the immediate future, we'll be seeing more of the Xbox One but upgraded versions instead.
Ultimately if that is the case, I should wait for a specific Series X version of Cyberpunk rather than buying the Xbox One "upgraded" version. Hell, maybe by the time the X version comes out, CD will have half the bugs fixed
Which is what CDPR should’ve done on console from the onset to avoid a majority of this fiasco. Well, they *might* have if the decision was theirs alone to make.
I'd have just dropped PS4 and XboxOne support entirely.
I mean, beyond the fact that metabolism and hormone levels are strongly influenced by age, beyond the fact that musculature plays a huge role in determining the body's shape and beyond the fact that the metrics which determine phenotype are tied to specific measurements which can certainly change throughout an individual's life, I increasingly fail to see what the point you're trying to make even is, or why it is relevant.
Why does it matter what phenotype a person has? The link you posted is literally a demonstration of the arbitrary nature of phenotyping as a practice and, again I have to stress, does not arrive at the same conclusion you do about it. Why does it matter if two people technically have a certain phenotype if in practice they don't look remotely similar and if only one of them gets to appear in media? What is significant about phenotype that warrants consideration or supports the overall point you are making?
And I don't need to. That's the point of looking at someone else's research.
Okay, but if it's not a realistic universe why does the character look (to a large extent) like a real woman? Why spend immense amounts of money digitally reproducing the face and movements of a real model? Is that part of the political and social commentary? What's it a commentary on? What is the intended relationship between player and character that is being created through all this meticulous and absurdly expensive effort?
So my point, again, was that the line between stylization and realism is often arbitrary and complex when it comes to art. MGS isn't a realistic universe, but neither is it an entirely unrealistic universe. It is deliberately surreal, meaning that it combines elements of realism with the nonsensical and absurd. Kojima had absolute creative freedom to be as realistic or unrealistic as he wanted in any specific area of the game, which raises the obvious question of why he chose the specific things he did, and what the intended effect was, and it's very hard to escape the conclusion that the intended effect was to make a character who would be sexually titillating to basic straight men, because she looks like a realistic woman but doesn't dress like one. That's apparently the exact point where we leave reality. That was the choice that was made, and there's nothing exceptional or special about it when compared to any other instance where the exact same choice was made for the exact same reason. It's not deep, it's not important, it's just basic and rather dull.
Also, I could simply reverse your argument in the case of TLOU2. I could point out that while the setting is fairly grounded and realistic, it still has clearly unrealistic elements (like, for example, fungus zombies) and that it exists as a vehicle to convey story themes about revenge and dehumanization. In this context, Abby's character design is deeply informative of who they are, and about the story. Why is that not enough, when apparently it's enough here? Because having a character who is "unrealistically" muscular in a post-apocalyptic setting seems no more weird to me than having a character who is in great physical shape but apparently hasn't figured out how to wear a sports bra.
Bear in mind, I think the story of TLOU2 is cliche and dumb and I have no interest in it. I just find this argument really weird.
So, what does this actually change?
You can't make a statement on objectification by just doing it and pretending it has more depth and meaning simply because you thought about it while doing it. Look, for some reason I like the film Lifeforce, I think there's a subversive quality to the way that film uses male heterosexuality which betrays an underrated intelligence. But I'm not going to pretend that the nudity in that film is divorced from the voyeuristic desires of an assumed audience who derive sexual enjoyment from seeing female nudity, or the objectification inherent to satisfying those desires.
Having a deeper meaning or commentary doesn't change what is actually going on. Anything can be a symbol. The things we choose to make symbolic are things for which we can be held to account.
Again, simply not true.
I wrote a thesis on masculinity. I've read literally hundreds of papers on the meaning and implications of male bodies in media. I can tell you exactly when and how that stereotype of muscular bodies as denoting virtue or personal quality emerged (short answer, 19th century German romantics). Even in pop culture feminism, people talk about the associations of male bodies all the time. It's a huge part of the "toxic masculinity" discourse, for example. People just don't talk about it in the context of sexual objectification because it's not sexual objectification.
We live in a dystopic setting where all aspects of human life and identity are commodified by corporations (like CDPR) and where trans women are sexually objectified for the purposes of cis people's enjoyment or amusement. Again, it's not a commentary if you're just doing what everyone else does.
Trust me, when corporations get serious about exploiting trans people it will be far more insidious than the age old WHAT IF SMEXY WOMAN HAS BIG PEE PEE joke that the warped cishet psyche seems to find incredibly amusing for some reason.
Last edited:
I think the point of those ads in Cyberpunk is to send out a message that everyone is accepted in the future regardless of body type and gender. But that also means that those people are now up for grabs to be exploited in advertising. If a beautiful woman with a vagina can practically have her tits and ass out in an advertisement for some product, then a truly accepting culture means that a trans woman with a penis can also be sexually used to advertise.
Equality for all!